Physical distancing interventions and incidence of coronavirus disease 2019: natural experiment in 149 countries.
Journal
BMJ (Clinical research ed.)
ISSN: 1756-1833
Titre abrégé: BMJ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8900488
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 07 2020
15 07 2020
Historique:
entrez:
17
7
2020
pubmed:
17
7
2020
medline:
25
7
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To evaluate the association between physical distancing interventions and incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) globally. Natural experiment using interrupted time series analysis, with results synthesised using meta-analysis. 149 countries or regions, with data on daily reported cases of covid-19 from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and data on the physical distancing policies from the Oxford covid-19 Government Response Tracker. Individual countries or regions that implemented one of the five physical distancing interventions (closures of schools, workplaces, and public transport, restrictions on mass gatherings and public events, and restrictions on movement (lockdowns)) between 1 January and 30 May 2020. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of covid-19 before and after implementation of physical distancing interventions, estimated using data to 30 May 2020 or 30 days post-intervention, whichever occurred first. IRRs were synthesised across countries using random effects meta-analysis. On average, implementation of any physical distancing intervention was associated with an overall reduction in covid-19 incidence of 13% (IRR 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 0.89; n=149 countries). Closure of public transport was not associated with any additional reduction in covid-19 incidence when the other four physical distancing interventions were in place (pooled IRR with and without public transport closure was 0.85, 0.82 to 0.88; n=72, and 0.87, 0.84 to 0.91; n=32, respectively). Data from 11 countries also suggested similar overall effectiveness (pooled IRR 0.85, 0.81 to 0.89) when school closures, workplace closures, and restrictions on mass gatherings were in place. In terms of sequence of interventions, earlier implementation of lockdown was associated with a larger reduction in covid-19 incidence (pooled IRR 0.86, 0.84 to 0.89; n=105) compared with a delayed implementation of lockdown after other physical distancing interventions were in place (pooled IRR 0.90, 0.87 to 0.94; n=41). Physical distancing interventions were associated with reductions in the incidence of covid-19 globally. No evidence was found of an additional effect of public transport closure when the other four physical distancing measures were in place. Earlier implementation of lockdown was associated with a larger reduction in the incidence of covid-19. These findings might support policy decisions as countries prepare to impose or lift physical distancing measures in current or future epidemic waves.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32669358
doi: 10.1136/bmj.m2743
pmc: PMC7360923
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
m2743Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_U137686857
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_00006/7
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_12026/3
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/K023187/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: NI receives salary support from the Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Références
Science. 2020 May 8;368(6491):638-642
pubmed: 32234804
BMJ. 2020 May 21;369:m1904
pubmed: 32439691
Lancet Public Health. 2020 May;5(5):e279-e288
pubmed: 32311320
N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 30;382(18):e41
pubmed: 32212516
Nat Med. 2020 May;26(5):676-680
pubmed: 32371934
Science. 2020 Apr 10;368(6487):145-146
pubmed: 32205458
JAMA. 2007 Aug 8;298(6):644-54
pubmed: 17684187
Sci Total Environ. 2020 Jul 10;725:138539
pubmed: 32304973
Lancet. 2020 Jun 27;395(10242):1973-1987
pubmed: 32497510
Lancet. 2020 Mar 14;395(10227):848-850
pubmed: 32151326
Lancet Public Health. 2020 May;5(5):e261-e270
pubmed: 32220655
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Jun;20(6):678-688
pubmed: 32213332
Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88
pubmed: 3802833
Lancet. 2020 Mar 21;395(10228):945
pubmed: 32142626
Lancet. 2020 Apr 11;395(10231):1225-1228
pubmed: 32178769
Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2020 May;4(5):397-404
pubmed: 32272089
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Apr 17;69(15):458-464
pubmed: 32298251
Int J Epidemiol. 2017 Feb 1;46(1):348-355
pubmed: 27283160
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Apr 8;4:CD013574
pubmed: 32267544
Lancet. 2020 Apr 25;395(10233):1382-1393
pubmed: 32277878
JAMA. 2020 Apr 10;:
pubmed: 32275295
Ann Intern Med. 2020 May 5;172(9):577-582
pubmed: 32150748
Occup Med (Lond). 2020 Jul 17;70(5):370-374
pubmed: 32409839
Lancet. 2020 Apr 25;395(10233):1321-1322
pubmed: 32277876
BMJ. 2020 Jun 11;369:m2255
pubmed: 32527721
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Jun;20(6):631-633
pubmed: 32213329
BMJ. 2020 Apr 6;369:m1379
pubmed: 32253182
BMJ. 2020 May 22;369:m1985
pubmed: 32444460
PLoS Med. 2008 Mar 25;5(3):e74
pubmed: 18366252