RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Sars-CoV-2 attack rate in reception and accommodation centres for asylum seekers: systematic review of outbreak media reports in Germany
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.03.12.21249641
DO 10.1101/2021.03.12.21249641
A1 Jahn, Rosa
A1 Hintermeier, Maren
A1 Bozorgmehr, Kayvan
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/12/2021.03.12.21249641.abstract
AB Objectives Despite concerns about the impact of the severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus (Sars-CoV-2) in refugee camps, data on attack rates and effectiveness of containment measures are lacking. We aimed to (1) quantify the attack rate of Sars-CoV-2 during outbreaks in reception and accommodation centres in Germany, (2) assess differences in the attack rate based on containment measures, and (3) provide an overview of testing strategies, communication, conflicts, and protection measures for refugees with special needs.Methods Systematic web-based review of outbreak media reports (until June 2020) on confirmed Sars-CoV-2 cases in reception centers for asylum seekers in Germany using the google search engine. Reports were screened for pre-defined inclusion criteria and complemented by snowball searches. Data on facility name, location, confirmed cases, containment measures, communication, protection strategies, and conflicts was extracted for each outbreak and reporting date. Evidence synthesis: meta-analysis and negative binomial regression.Findings We identified 337 media reports on 101 Sars-CoV-2 outbreaks in 99 reception and accommodation centers in Germany. The pooled Sars-CoV-2 attack rate was 13.1% (95% confidence interval, CI: 9.8-16.7). Outbreak sites implementing mass quarantine (n=76) showed higher rates (15.7; 95% CI: 11.6 - 20.2) compared to sites using conventional strategies (6.6; 95%CI: 3.1 - 11.2), yielding a rate ratio of 0.44 (95%CI: 0.27-0.72) adjusted for testing strategies, type and size of accommodation. Conflicts occurred in at least 11.8% of all outbreaks. Few sites reported specific measures to protect refugees with special needs.Conclusion Mass quarantine is associated with higher attack rates, and appears to be a counter-productive containment measure in overcrowded camps. Although further research with individual-level data is required to rule out residual confounding, reception centers and refugee camps should follow the available guidelines on Covid-19 response and refrain from mass quarantine if physical distancing cannot be guaranteed.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementMH and KB acknowledge funding by the German Science Foundation (DFG).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study is based on published literature, no ethical clearance was required.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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 and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data / links to media reports can pe provided upon request.