Abstract
Introduction Non-pharmaceutical interventions to facilitate response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a disease caused by novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, are urgently needed. Using the WHO health emergency and disaster risk management (health-EDRM) framework, behavioural measures for droplet-borne communicable disease, with their enabling and limiting factors at various implementation levels were evaluated.
Sources of data Keyword search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, Medline, Science Direct, WHO and CDC online publication database. Using OCEBM as review criteria, 105 English-language articles, with ten bottom-up, non-pharmaceutical prevention measures, published between January 2000 and May 2020 were identified and examined.
Areas of Agreement Evidence-guided behavioural measures against COVID-19 transmission for global at-risk communities are identified.
Area of Concern Strong evidence-based systematic behavioural studies for COVID-19 prevention are lacking.
Growing points Very limited research publications are available for non-pharmaceutical interventions to facilitate pandemic response.
Areas timely for research Research with strong implementation feasibility that targets resource-poor settings with low baseline Health-EDRM capacity is urgently need.
Introduction
Uncertainties in disease epidemiology, treatment and management in biological hazards have often urged policy makers and community health protection to revisit prevention approaches to maximise infection control and protection. The COVID-19 pandemic, a disease caused by novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, has pushed global governments and communities to revisit the appropriate non-pharmaceutical, health prevention measures in response to this unexpected virus outbreak1. The World Health Organisation (WHO) health emergency and disaster risk management (health-EDRM) framework refers to the structured analysis and management of health risks brought upon by emergencies and disasters. The framework focuses on prevention and risk mitigation through hazard and vulnerability reduction, preparedness, response and recovery measures2, and further calls attention to the significance of community involvement to counteract the potential negative impacts of hazardous events such as infectious disease outbreaks2. COVID-19 is defined as a biological hazard under the health-EDRM disaster classification3. While there is evidence for potential COVID-19 droplet transmission4, the WHO has suggested that airborne transmission may only be possible in certain circumstances4. Further evidence is needed to categorise it as an airborne disease specifically, per the framework.
Health-EDRM prevention measures can be classified into primary, secondary or tertiary levels5. Primary prevention mitigates the occurrence of illness through an emphasis on health promotion and education aimed at behavioural modification6; secondary prevention involves screening and infection identification; and tertiary prevention focuses on treatment. In the context of COVID-19, both secondary and tertiary preventive measures are complicated due to the high incidence of asymptomatic patients7; the lack of consensus and availability of specific treatment or vaccine8; and the added stress on the health system during a pandemic. Primary prevention that focuses on protecting an individual from contracting an infection9 is thus the most practical option. A comprehensive disaster management cycle (prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery) encompasses both top-down and bottom-up measures10,11. Top-down measures require well-driven bottom-up initiatives to successfully achieve primary prevention and effectively modify community behaviours12.
Based on the health-EDRM framework, which emphases the impact of context on efficacy of measure practices3, this paper examines available published evidence on primary prevention measures that might be adopted at the personal, household and community level for droplet-borne transmitted diseases, and enabling and limiting factors for each measure. Additionally, this paper reviews the strength of available scientific evidence for each of the behavioural changes measure which may reduce health risks.
Methodology
A literature search was conducted in May 2020. English-language based, international peer-reviewed articles, online reports, electronic books and press releases published between January 2000 and May 2020 were identified. The snowballing search methodology was also utilised. Research databases examined in this study included PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, Medline and Science Direct. WHO, United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other local-government publications and information outlets were also included. The following keywords or phrases were searched for: ‘health-EDRM’. ‘COVID-19’ ‘risk-management’, ‘droplet transmission’, ‘global health’, ‘epidemiology’, ‘virus’, ‘prevention’, ‘coronavirus treatment’, ‘severe acute respiratory syndrome’, ‘disinfection’, ‘transmission’ ‘SARS’ ‘SARSCoV-2’, ‘coronaviruses’, ‘enveloped viruses’, ‘virus stability’, ‘COVID-19 stability’, ‘virus transmission’, ‘host responses to virus’, ‘2019-nCOV’. ‘SARS-CoV-2 entry points’, ‘respiratory virus’, ‘air pollution, ‘handwashing’, ‘pollution mask’, ‘face masks’, ‘infection risk reduction’, ‘rural handwashing’, ‘face touching’, ‘coughing and sneezing’, ‘virus outbreak’, ‘mass gatherings’, ‘biocidal agents virus’, ‘utensil sharing risk’, ‘cutlery sharing risk’, ‘respiratory hygiene’, ‘toilet plume’, ‘phone hygiene’. ‘COVID-19 policies’, ‘sodium hypochlorite disinfection’, ‘alcohol disinfection’, ‘carbon footprint’, ‘water supply scarcity’, ‘influenza’, ‘swine flu’, ‘social isolation’, ‘quarantine’, ‘social distancing’, ‘open defecation’, ‘WHO COVID-19’, ‘CDC COVID-19’, ‘COVID-19 advice’, ‘respiratory emission’, ‘ethics COVID-19’, ‘hygiene education’. Primary prevention measures as well as risk factors for infectious disease transmission were reviewed in order to generate ten core preventative measures for discussion. The avoidance of cutlery sharing, for example, was generated after determining it as a highly preventable risk for infectious disease transmission. Three independent reviewers engaged in the review and agreed on the final research used.
The literature was categorised according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) Levels of Evidence (Fig. 1)13, which systemises strength of evidence into levels, based on process of study design and methodology.
Results
The search identified 105 relevant publications, all of which were reviewed and included in the results analysis. The search identified ten bottom-up, non-pharmaceutical, primary prevention measures, based on the health-EDRM framework. The review of evidence is disaggregated into the ten prevention measures.
Six personal protective practices (engage in regular handwashing, wear face mask, avoid touching the face, cover mouth and nose when coughing and sneezing, bring personal utensils for when dining out, closing toilet cover when flushing), two household practices (disinfect household surfaces, avoid sharing cutlery) and two community practices (avoid crowds and mass gatherings, avoid travel) were identified. Tables 1a, 1b and 1c highlight the potential health risk; desired behavioural changes; potential health co-benefits; enabling and limiting factors; and strength of evidence available in published literature with regards to these measures.
Table 2 categorises all 105 reviewed publications according to the OCEBM Levels of Evidence13. Details each utilised reference can be found in Appendix 1. Quantity of evidence varies between each of ten measures reviewed, with handwashing and face mask practices having the most published resources available. Only a few systematic and longitudinal studies could be identified. Available evidence consists of predominantly level IV and V studies, and mainly of cross-sectional studies, guidelines and expert opinion.
Discussion
Evidence relating to ten health-EDRM behavioural measures for primary prevention against droplet-borne biological hazards were identified and reviewed. At the time of writing, there is an outstanding question as to whether COVID-19 is transmitted through droplet or aerosol in the community. The information referenced here is based on best available evidence, and will need to be updated as new studies and guidelines are published, and the understanding of the scientific community is enhanced. Although direct evidence on the efficacy of prevention measures against COVID-19 specifically is lacking due to the novelty of the disease, five behavioural measures were identified: regular handwashing; wearing of face masks; avoidance of face touching; covering during sneezing or coughing; and household disinfecting were identified. Five other potential behavioural measures were also identified through logical deductions from potential behavioural risks associated with transmission of diseases similar to COVID-1975. Utensil-related practices, in particular, were heavily limited in evidence to support their efficacy against viral infections.
The efficacy and success of the ten bottom-up primary prevention measures reviewed here are subject to specific enabling and limiting determinants, ranging from demographic (e.g. age, gender, education), socio-cultural, economic (e.g. financial accessibility to commodities), and knowledge (e.g. understanding of risk, equipment use). The viability and efficacy of each measure may be limited by determinants and constraints in different contexts. Resource-deprived areas may face constraints and reduced effectiveness of implementation, especially for measures that require preventive commodities such as face masks and household disinfectants. As such, special attention should be given to rural settings, informal settlements, and resource-deficit contexts where access to information and resources such as clean water supply are often limited119,120, and sanitation facilities are lacking121. For hygiene measures, different alternatives should be promoted and their relative scientific merits should be evaluated, such as the use of ash as an alternative to soap for handwashing62, or the efficacy of handwashing with alcohol sanitiser, which has been demonstrated in previously-published studies for H1N1122 and noroviruses123 but not yet for COVID-19. Meanwhile, for measures that have no direct alternatives available, it is important for authorities and policymakers to understand the capacity limitations of certain target groups, and provide additional support or put in place other preventive measures. In cases where material resources are scarce, the measures of awareness on sneezing and coughing etiquette as well as avoiding hand-to-face contact are the most convenient to adopt as they require little to no commodities. However, it should be well-noted that these measures are likely the most challenging in compliance and enforceability, as they rely on the modification of frequent and natural human behaviours whose modifications would require awareness and practice45,46. Furthermore, these can be challenging to implement in target groups with less capacity for health literacy and translation of education into practice, such as infants and elderly suffering from dementia. Cultural patterns can be associated with behavioural intentions, in the case of avoiding utensil-sharing during meals, enforcing change may be conflicted with cultural and traditional norms in Asia and certain European communities124.
Of the enabling factors documented for each proposed measure, shared enablers can be identified: accessibility and affordability of resources; related knowledge, awareness and understanding of risk; and associated top-down policy facilitation. Majority of personal and household practices heavily rely on access to resources, such as adequate water and soap supply for regular handwashing, quality face masks and household-disinfectants. Various theories of the ‘Knowledge, Attitudes, Practices’ model have assumed that individual knowledge enhancement will lead to positive behavioural changes118. Health measures targeting mask-wearing might aim to enhance (1) the individual’s risk perception, knowledge and awareness on protection effectiveness of masks, and how to properly wear a mask so that the prevention is most effective; (2) an individual or community’s attitude towards the practice of mask-wearing and encouraging compliance in the West, as studies demonstrate a relatively greater social stigmatisation towards mask-wearing amongst Westerners than East Asians125, and (3) normalising the practice of habitual mask-wearing. Such a conceptual framework should be utilized in the implementation of the health initiatives. In terms of overarching knowledge, health education on symptom-identification is also important, as seen on government platforms such as the CDC37. Enhancing health-seeking behaviour of potential carriers is critical to promoting a rapid response for quarantine or hospitalisation.
At the individual level, behavioural changes have different sustainability potentials and limitations. Measures can also result in unintended consequences, such as the improper disposal of face masks126 and the incorrect use of household disinfectants127 should be carefully monitored to maximise impact while minimising further health and safety risks. Top-down policy facilitation and strengthening of infrastructure will be essential for effective implementation. Top-down efforts in resource provision, such as the distribution of quality masks to all citizens by the government or similar authority128, enhance personal and household capacities to mitigate infection risks. On compliance, the effectiveness of community practices such as crowd and travel avoidance are highly dependent on the needs and circumstances of an individual and a community. More assertive top-down policies such as travel bans and social distancing rules may drive bottom-up initiatives within communities under legal deterrence129. However, in order to ensure population-level compliance to recommendations that have wide-ranging socioeconomic impact and involve more than a day-to-day behavioural change, careful risk and information communication is required, which takes in to consideration practical, legal and ethical aspects.
The strength of evidence available for each practice is dependent on multiple factors. In the case of a novel or emerging disease such as COVID-19, available evidence can be related specifically to the disease and pandemic, but some findings are deduced from studies on other similar viral infections and transmittable conditions, such as SARS or Influenza. Many interventions proposed by health authorities are not based on rigorous population-based longitudinal studies. While handwashing is well-regarded as a core measure by global and national public health agencies such as the WHO36 and CDC37 the chemical properties of eliminating enveloped viruses is understood60,38, specific studies on the practice’s efficacy and impact on COVID-19 transmission are lacking. Due to the uncertainties of disease pathology and epidemiology, effectiveness of behavioural measures against COVID-19 are far from conclusive. Other uncertainties are also reported on virus surface stability15 and if the efficacy of disinfectants against surface-stable viruses might vary with COVID-1975. Similar deductive evidence approaches from studies on other viruses have been utilised to judge the efficacy of face masks or the shutting of toilet lids84,83. Although published evidence suggested individual measures such as covering coughs and sneezes to be helpful against droplet transmissions14, further research is needed to understand the true efficacy of coverings such as masks, tissues or elbows as an adequate preventive measure against COVID-19. Given the rapid knowledge advancement and research updates related to COVID-19, further study updates will be warranted to identify the most appropriate behavioural measures to support bottom up biological hazard responses. Cost-effectiveness of the measures, their impact sustainability, co-benefits and risk implications on other sectors should also be examined and evaluated. Standardised studies across different contexts should be enhanced, for example conducting tests on the efficacy of different disinfectants or soaps under a standardised protocol. Such studies would increase evidence on individual and comparative efficacy.
The limitations in this review include language (English language only); database inclusion (grey literature not included); online accessibility of the article; and missed keywords. Publications documenting the experiences of traditional, non-English-speaking, rural communities during the COVID-19 pandemic might not be included in this review. Further research should review the measures’ efficacy in different contexts and make comparisons with their alternative measures. Specifically, alternative preventive measures that can be practiced in resource-poor, developing communities, whose health systems and economies generally suffer the greatest impact during pandemics are urgently needed. Increased understanding of how to effectively mitigate against biological hazards such as COVID-19 in various contexts will help communities prepare for future outbreaks and build disaster resilience in line with the recommendations from the health-EDRM framework.
Despite the constraints, this review has nevertheless identified common, relevant behavioural measures supported by best available evidence for the design and implementation of health policies that prevent droplet-borne biological hazards. Many of the measures recommended by authorities during the pandemic are based on best practice available rather than best available evidence. The possibility of conducting large cohort or randomised controlled studies is often complicated, and rather infeasible during a pandemic, as noted for face masks130,131. Further studies are needed to understand the efficacy of frequently proposed measures for transmission risk reduction. Nonetheless, each of the measures identified has scientific basis in mitigating the risk of droplet transmission14, either through personal measures such as handwashing, or community-based measures which aim to reduce person-to-person contact. It is important to explore the efficacy of alternatives, notably for transmission prevention and risk communication in low-resources or developing contexts where the capacity of the health system to mitigate and manage emergency events outbreaks are weak. For example, while face masks are understudied, the scientific study of cloth masks as an alternative is severely limited65, although recommended by the CDC132. Such alternative studies should expand to consider different cultures and contexts where different varieties of disinfectants, face masks and utensils may be used. There is also potential for comparative effectiveness studies to explore measures that provide the greatest transmission risk reduction at the lowest transaction cost to the individual and community and should thus be prioritised in low-resource contexts133.
Conclusion
During the outbreak of a novel transmissible disease such as COVID-19, primary prevention is the strongest and most effective line of defence to reduce health risks when there is an absence of effective treatment or vaccine. COVID-19 is and will be subjected to ongoing research and scrutiny by global scientists, health professionals and policy makers. While research gaps remain on the efficacy of various health-EDRM prevention measures in risk reduction and transmission control of COVID-19, suboptimal scientific evidence does not negate the potential benefits arising from good hygiene practices, especially where the likelihood for negative outcome is minimal. Despite the lack of rigorous scientific evidence, the best available practice-based health education content, effective means of information dissemination, equitable access to resources, and monitoring of unintended consequences of the promoted measures, such as environmental pollution due to poor waste management, will be essential. A top-down approach should be multi-sectorial, bringing in policy makers with clinical, public health, environmental, and community management expertise to develop a coordinated and comprehensive approach in a globalised world.
Conflict of Interest and Financial Declaration
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The study is fully funded by the CCOUC-University of Oxford research fund (2019–2023).
Data Availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.
Appendix 1 Relevant Measure(s), Study Design, Relevant Key Finding(s) and/or Conclusion of Each Utilised Reference
KEY 1 – MEASURES
KEY 2 – OCEBM LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
References
- 1.↵
- 2.↵
- 3.↵
- 4.↵
- 5.↵
- 6.↵
- 7.↵
- 8.↵
- 9.↵
- 10.↵
- 11.↵
- 12.↵
- 13.↵
- 14.↵
- 15.↵
- 16.
- 17.
- 18.
- 19.
- 20.
- 21.
- 22.
- 23.
- 24.
- 25.
- 26.
- 27.
- 28.
- 29.
- 30.
- 31.
- 32.
- 33.
- 34.
- 35.
- 36.↵
- 37.↵
- 38.↵
- 39.
- 40.
- 41.
- 42.
- 43.
- 44.
- 45.↵
- 46.↵
- 47.
- 48.
- 49.
- 50.
- 51.
- 52.
- 53.
- 54.
- 55.
- 56.
- 57.
- 58.
- 59.
- 60.↵
- 61.
- 62.↵
- 63.
- 64.
- 65.↵
- 66.
- 67.
- 68.
- 69.
- 70.
- 71.
- 72.
- 73.
- 74.
- 75.↵
- 76.
- 77.
- 78.
- 79.
- 80.
- 81.
- 82.
- 83.↵
- 84.↵
- 85.
- 86.
- 87.
- 88.
- 89.
- 90.
- 91.
- 92.
- 93.
- 94.
- 95.
- 96.
- 97.
- 98.
- 99.
- 100.
- 101.
- 102.
- 103.
- 104.
- 105.
- 106.
- 107.
- 108.
- 109.
- 110.
- 111.
- 112.
- 113.
- 114.
- 115.
- 116.
- 117.
- 118.↵
- 119.↵
- 120.↵
- 121.↵
- 122.↵
- 123.↵
- 124.↵
- 125.↵
- 126.↵
- 127.↵
- 128.↵
- 129.↵
- 130.↵
- 131.↵
- 132.↵
- 133.↵