ABSTRACT
Background Many studies examined the impact of behavioural interventions on COVID-19 outcomes. We conducted a systematic review to gain insight into transmission models, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. We included peer-reviewed studies published in English until December 31, 2022, focusing on human subjects, modelling, and examining behavioural interventions during COVID-19 using real data across diverse geographical regions.
Methods We searched seven databases. We used descriptive analysis, network analysis for textual synthesis, and regression analysis to identify the relationship between basic reproduction number (R0) and various characteristics. From 30, 114 articles gathered, 15, 781 met the inclusion criteria. After deduplication, 7, 616 articles remained. The titles and abstracts screening reduced these to 1, 764 articles. Full-text screening reduced this to 270, and risk-of-bias assessment narrowed it to 245 articles. We employed combined criteria for risk of bias assessment, incorporating domains from ROBINS-I and principles for modeling.
Results Primary outcomes focused on the R0, COVID-19 cases, and transmission rates. The average R0 was approximately 3.184, indicating an infected individual could spread the disease to about 3.184 of others. The average effective reproduction number (Rc) was about 0.936, reflecting the impact of interventions. Most studies (90.3%) used compartmental models, particularly SEIR. Social distancing, mask-wearing, and lockdowns were frequently analyzed interventions. Early and strict implementation of these interventions significantly reduced transmission rates. Risk of bias assessment revealed 61.9% of studies with low risk, 24.8% moderate, and 9.3% high risks. Common issues included transparency, attrition bias, and confounding factors.
Conclusions This comprehensive review highlights the importance of behavioural interventions in reducing COVID-19 transmission and areas for improving future research transparency and robustness. Our risk of bias criteria offers an important framework for future systematic reviews in modeling studies of interventions. We recommend that future studies enhance transparency in reporting and address common biases such as attrition and confounding.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
Funding Statement
Yes
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
N/A
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The extracted data is available on the Open Science Framework (OSF) at the following link: https://osf.io/dy9ck/ in Excel file format.
