Reach and public health implications of proposed new food marketing regulation in Germany: an updated analysis.

Advertising for unhealthy foods adversely affects children's food preferences and intake. The German government published plans to restrict such advertising in February 2023 and has revised them several times since. We assess the reach of the current draft from June 2023, and discuss its public health implications. We show that across 22 product categories covered by the current draft law, the median share of products permitted for marketing to children stands at 55%, with an interquartile range of 11-73%. Resistance from industry groups and from within government poses hurdles and leaves the prospects of the legislation uncertain.

Measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND: In response to the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), governments have implemented a variety of measures to control the spread of the virus and the associated disease. Among these, have been measures to control the pandemic in primary and secondary school settings. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of measures implemented in the school setting to safely reopen schools, or keep schools open, or both, during the COVID-19 pandemic, with particular focus on the different types of measures implemented in school settings and the outcomes used to measure their impacts on transmission-related outcomes, healthcare utilisation outcomes, other health outcomes as well as societal, economic, and ecological outcomes.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and the Educational Resources Information Center, as well as COVID-19-specific databases, including the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease (indexing preprints) on 9 December 2020. We conducted backward-citation searches with existing reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered experimental (i.e. randomised controlled trials; RCTs), quasi-experimental, observational and modelling studies assessing the effects of measures implemented in the school setting to safely reopen schools, or keep schools open, or both, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Outcome categories were (i) transmission-related outcomes (e.g. number or proportion of cases); (ii) healthcare utilisation outcomes (e.g. number or proportion of hospitalisations); (iii) other health outcomes (e.g. physical, social and mental health); and (iv) societal, economic and ecological outcomes (e.g. costs, human resources and education). We considered studies that included any population at risk of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 and/or developing COVID-19 disease including students, teachers, other school staff, or members of the wider community.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts. One review author extracted data and critically appraised each study. One additional review author validated the extracted data. To critically appraise included studies, we used the ROBINS-I tool for quasi-experimental and observational studies, the QUADAS-2 tool for observational screening studies, and a bespoke tool for modelling studies. We synthesised findings narratively. Three review authors made an initial assessment of the certainty of evidence with GRADE, and several review authors discussed and agreed on the ratings. MAIN RESULTS: We included 38 unique studies in the analysis, comprising 33 modelling studies, three observational studies, one quasi-experimental and one experimental study with modelling components. Measures fell into four broad categories: (i) measures reducing the opportunity for contacts; (ii) measures making contacts safer; (iii) surveillance and response measures; and (iv) multicomponent measures. As comparators, we encountered the operation of schools with no measures in place, less intense measures in place, single versus multicomponent measures in place, or closure of schools. Across all intervention categories and all study designs, very low- to low-certainty evidence ratings limit our confidence in the findings. Concerns with the quality of modelling studies related to potentially inappropriate assumptions about the model structure and input parameters, and an inadequate assessment of model uncertainty. Concerns with risk of bias in observational studies related to deviations from intended interventions or missing data. Across all categories, few studies reported on implementation or described how measures were implemented. Where we describe effects as 'positive', the direction of the point estimate of the effect favours the intervention(s); 'negative' effects do not favour the intervention.  We found 23 modelling studies assessing measures reducing the opportunity for contacts (i.e. alternating attendance, reduced class size). Most of these studies assessed transmission and healthcare utilisation outcomes, and all of these studies showed a reduction in transmission (e.g. a reduction in the number or proportion of cases, reproduction number) and healthcare utilisation (i.e. fewer hospitalisations) and mixed or negative effects on societal, economic and ecological outcomes (i.e. fewer number of days spent in school). We identified 11 modelling studies and two observational studies assessing measures making contacts safer (i.e. mask wearing, cleaning, handwashing, ventilation). Five studies assessed the impact of combined measures to make contacts safer. They assessed transmission-related, healthcare utilisation, other health, and societal, economic and ecological outcomes. Most of these studies showed a reduction in transmission, and a reduction in hospitalisations; however, studies showed mixed or negative effects on societal, economic and ecological outcomes (i.e. fewer number of days spent in school). We identified 13 modelling studies and one observational study assessing surveillance and response measures, including testing and isolation, and symptomatic screening and isolation. Twelve studies focused on mass testing and isolation measures, while two looked specifically at symptom-based screening and isolation. Outcomes included transmission, healthcare utilisation, other health, and societal, economic and ecological outcomes. Most of these studies showed effects in favour of the intervention in terms of reductions in transmission and hospitalisations, however some showed mixed or negative effects on societal, economic and ecological outcomes (e.g. fewer number of days spent in school). We found three studies that reported outcomes relating to multicomponent measures, where it was not possible to disaggregate the effects of each individual intervention, including one modelling, one observational and one quasi-experimental study. These studies employed interventions, such as physical distancing, modification of school activities, testing, and exemption of high-risk students, using measures such as hand hygiene and mask wearing. Most of these studies showed a reduction in transmission, however some showed mixed or no effects.   As the majority of studies included in the review were modelling studies, there was a lack of empirical, real-world data, which meant that there were very little data on the actual implementation of interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review suggests that a broad range of measures implemented in the school setting can have positive impacts on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, and on healthcare utilisation outcomes related to COVID-19. The certainty of the evidence for most intervention-outcome combinations is very low, and the true effects of these measures are likely to be substantially different from those reported here. Measures implemented in the school setting may limit the number or proportion of cases and deaths, and may delay the progression of the pandemic. However, they may also lead to negative unintended consequences, such as fewer days spent in school (beyond those intended by the intervention). Further, most studies assessed the effects of a combination of interventions, which could not be disentangled to estimate their specific effects. Studies assessing measures to reduce contacts and to make contacts safer consistently predicted positive effects on transmission and healthcare utilisation, but may reduce the number of days students spent at school. Studies assessing surveillance and response measures predicted reductions in hospitalisations and school days missed due to infection or quarantine, however, there was mixed evidence on resources needed for surveillance. Evidence on multicomponent measures was mixed, mostly due to comparators. The magnitude of effects depends on multiple factors. New studies published since the original search date might heavily influence the overall conclusions and interpretation of findings for this review.

Nutrition policies in Germany: a systematic assessment with the Food Environment Policy Index.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess Germany's nutrition policies, to benchmark them against international best practices and to identify priority policy actions to improve population-level nutrition in Germany. DESIGN: We applied the Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI), a methodological framework developed by the International Network for Food and Obesity/non-communicable Diseases Research, Monitoring and Action Support (INFORMAS) network. Qualitative content analysis of laws, directives and other documents formed the basis of a multistaged, structured consultation process. SETTING: Germany. PARTICIPANTS: The expert consultation process included fifty-five experts from academia, public administration and civil society. RESULTS: Germany lags behind international best practices in several key policy areas. For eighteen policy indicators, the degree of implementation compared with international best practices was rated as very low, for twenty-one as low, for eight as intermediate and for none as high. In particular, indicators on food taxation, regulation of food marketing as well as retail and food service sector policies were rated as very low to low. Identified priority actions included the binding implementation of nutrition standards for schools and kindergartens, a reform of the value added tax on foods and beverages, a sugar-sweetened beverage tax and stricter regulation of food marketing directed at children. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that Germany makes insufficient use of the potential of evidence-informed health-promoting nutrition policies. Adopting international best practices in key policy areas could help to reduce the burden of nutrition-related chronic disease and related inequalities in nutrition and health in Germany. Implementation of relevant policies requires political leadership, a broad societal dialogue and evidence-informed advocacy by civil society, including the scientific community.

International travel-related control measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: In late 2019, the first cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were reported in Wuhan, China, followed by a worldwide spread. Numerous countries have implemented control measures related to international travel, including border closures, travel restrictions, screening at borders, and quarantine of travellers. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of international travel-related control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic on infectious disease transmission and screening-related outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and COVID-19-specific databases, including the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the WHO Global Database on COVID-19 Research to 13 November 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered experimental, quasi-experimental, observational and modelling studies assessing the effects of travel-related control measures affecting human travel across international borders during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the original review, we also considered evidence on severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). In this version we decided to focus on COVID-19 evidence only. Primary outcome categories were (i) cases avoided, (ii) cases detected, and (iii) a shift in epidemic development. Secondary outcomes were other infectious disease transmission outcomes, healthcare utilisation, resource requirements and adverse effects if identified in studies assessing at least one primary outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and subsequently full texts. For studies included in the analysis, one review author extracted data and appraised the study. At least one additional review author checked for correctness of data. To assess the risk of bias and quality of included studies, we used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool for observational studies concerned with screening, and a bespoke tool for modelling studies. We synthesised findings narratively. One review author assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE, and several review authors discussed these GRADE judgements. MAIN RESULTS: Overall, we included 62 unique studies in the analysis; 49 were modelling studies and 13 were observational studies. Studies covered a variety of settings and levels of community transmission. Most studies compared travel-related control measures against a counterfactual scenario in which the measure was not implemented. However, some modelling studies described additional comparator scenarios, such as different levels of stringency of the measures (including relaxation of restrictions), or a combination of measures. Concerns with the quality of modelling studies related to potentially inappropriate assumptions about the structure and input parameters, and an inadequate assessment of model uncertainty. Concerns with risk of bias in observational studies related to the selection of travellers and the reference test, and unclear reporting of certain methodological aspects. Below we outline the results for each intervention category by illustrating the findings from selected outcomes. Travel restrictions reducing or stopping cross-border travel (31 modelling studies) The studies assessed cases avoided and shift in epidemic development. We found very low-certainty evidence for a reduction in COVID-19 cases in the community (13 studies) and cases exported or imported (9 studies). Most studies reported positive effects, with effect sizes varying widely; only a few studies showed no effect. There was very low-certainty evidence that cross-border travel controls can slow the spread of COVID-19. Most studies predicted positive effects, however, results from individual studies varied from a delay of less than one day to a delay of 85 days; very few studies predicted no effect of the measure. Screening at borders (13 modelling studies; 13 observational studies) Screening measures covered symptom/exposure-based screening or test-based screening (commonly specifying polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing), or both, before departure or upon or within a few days of arrival. Studies assessed cases avoided, shift in epidemic development and cases detected. Studies generally predicted or observed some benefit from screening at borders, however these varied widely. For symptom/exposure-based screening, one modelling study reported that global implementation of screening measures would reduce the number of cases exported per day from another country by 82% (95% confidence interval (CI) 72% to 95%) (moderate-certainty evidence). Four modelling studies predicted delays in epidemic development, although there was wide variation in the results between the studies (very low-certainty evidence). Four modelling studies predicted that the proportion of cases detected would range from 1% to 53% (very low-certainty evidence). Nine observational studies observed the detected proportion to range from 0% to 100% (very low-certainty evidence), although all but one study observed this proportion to be less than 54%. For test-based screening, one modelling study provided very low-certainty evidence for the number of cases avoided. It reported that testing travellers reduced imported or exported cases as well as secondary cases. Five observational studies observed that the proportion of cases detected varied from 58% to 90% (very low-certainty evidence). Quarantine (12 modelling studies) The studies assessed cases avoided, shift in epidemic development and cases detected. All studies suggested some benefit of quarantine, however the magnitude of the effect ranged from small to large across the different outcomes (very low- to low-certainty evidence). Three modelling studies predicted that the reduction in the number of cases in the community ranged from 450 to over 64,000 fewer cases (very low-certainty evidence). The variation in effect was possibly related to the duration of quarantine and compliance. Quarantine and screening at borders (7 modelling studies; 4 observational studies) The studies assessed shift in epidemic development and cases detected. Most studies predicted positive effects for the combined measures with varying magnitudes (very low- to low-certainty evidence). Four observational studies observed that the proportion of cases detected for quarantine and screening at borders ranged from 68% to 92% (low-certainty evidence). The variation may depend on how the measures were combined, including the length of the quarantine period and days when the test was conducted in quarantine. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: With much of the evidence derived from modelling studies, notably for travel restrictions reducing or stopping cross-border travel and quarantine of travellers, there is a lack of 'real-world' evidence. The certainty of the evidence for most travel-related control measures and outcomes is very low and the true effects are likely to be substantially different from those reported here. Broadly, travel restrictions may limit the spread of disease across national borders. Symptom/exposure-based screening measures at borders on their own are likely not effective; PCR testing at borders as a screening measure likely detects more cases than symptom/exposure-based screening at borders, although if performed only upon arrival this will likely also miss a meaningful proportion of cases. Quarantine, based on a sufficiently long quarantine period and high compliance is likely to largely avoid further transmission from travellers. Combining quarantine with PCR testing at borders will likely improve effectiveness. Many studies suggest that effects depend on factors, such as levels of community transmission, travel volumes and duration, other public health measures in place, and the exact specification and timing of the measure. Future research should be better reported, employ a range of designs beyond modelling and assess potential benefits and harms of the travel-related control measures from a societal perspective.

Non-pharmacological measures implemented in the setting of long-term care facilities to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections and their consequences: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Starting in late 2019, COVID-19, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, spread around the world. Long-term care facilities are at particularly high risk of outbreaks, and the burden of morbidity and mortality is very high among residents living in these facilities. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of non-pharmacological measures implemented in long-term care facilities to prevent or reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection among residents, staff, and visitors. SEARCH METHODS: On 22 January 2021, we searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, Web of Science, and CINAHL. We also conducted backward citation searches of existing reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered experimental, quasi-experimental, observational and modelling studies that assessed the effects of the measures implemented in long-term care facilities to protect residents and staff against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Primary outcomes were infections, hospitalisations and deaths due to COVID-19, contaminations of and outbreaks in long-term care facilities, and adverse health effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts. One review author performed data extractions, risk of bias assessments and quality appraisals, and at least one other author checked their accuracy. Risk of bias and quality assessments were conducted using the ROBINS-I tool for cohort and interrupted-time-series studies, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for case-control studies, and a bespoke tool for modelling studies. We synthesised findings narratively, focusing on the direction of effect. One review author assessed certainty of evidence with GRADE, with the author team critically discussing the ratings. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 observational studies and 11 modelling studies in the analysis. All studies were conducted in high-income countries. Most studies compared outcomes in long-term care facilities that implemented the measures with predicted or observed control scenarios without the measure (but often with baseline infection control measures also in place). Several modelling studies assessed additional comparator scenarios, such as comparing higher with lower rates of testing. There were serious concerns regarding risk of bias in almost all observational studies and major or critical concerns regarding the quality of many modelling studies. Most observational studies did not adequately control for confounding. Many modelling studies used inappropriate assumptions about the structure and input parameters of the models, and failed to adequately assess uncertainty. Overall, we identified five intervention domains, each including a number of specific measures. Entry regulation measures (4 observational studies; 4 modelling studies) Self-confinement of staff with residents may reduce the number of infections, probability of facility contamination, and number of deaths. Quarantine for new admissions may reduce the number of infections. Testing of new admissions and intensified testing of residents and of staff after holidays may reduce the number of infections, but the evidence is very uncertain. The evidence is very uncertain regarding whether restricting admissions of new residents reduces the number of infections, but the measure may reduce the probability of facility contamination. Visiting restrictions may reduce the number of infections and deaths. Furthermore, it may increase the probability of facility contamination, but the evidence is very uncertain. It is very uncertain how visiting restrictions may adversely affect the mental health of residents. Contact-regulating and transmission-reducing measures (6 observational studies; 2 modelling studies) Barrier nursing may increase the number of infections and the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Multicomponent cleaning and environmental hygiene measures may reduce the number of infections, but the evidence is very uncertain. It is unclear how contact reduction measures affect the probability of outbreaks. These measures may reduce the number of infections, but the evidence is very uncertain. Personal hygiene measures may reduce the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain.  Mask and personal protective equipment usage may reduce the number of infections, the probability of outbreaks, and the number of deaths, but the evidence is very uncertain. Cohorting residents and staff may reduce the number of infections, although evidence is very uncertain. Multicomponent contact -regulating and transmission -reducing measures may reduce the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Surveillance measures (2 observational studies; 6 modelling studies) Routine testing of residents and staff independent of symptoms may reduce the number of infections. It may reduce the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Evidence from one observational study suggests that the measure may reduce, while the evidence from one modelling study suggests that it probably reduces hospitalisations. The measure may reduce the number of deaths among residents, but the evidence on deaths among staff is unclear.  Symptom-based surveillance testing may reduce the number of infections and the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Outbreak control measures (4 observational studies; 3 modelling studies) Separating infected and non-infected residents or staff caring for them may reduce the number of infections. The measure may reduce the probability of outbreaks and may reduce the number of deaths, but the evidence for the latter is very uncertain. Isolation of cases may reduce the number of infections and the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Multicomponent measures (2 observational studies; 1 modelling study) A combination of multiple infection-control measures, including various combinations of the above categories, may reduce the number of infections and may reduce the number of deaths, but the evidence for the latter is very uncertain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides a comprehensive framework and synthesis of a range of non-pharmacological measures implemented in long-term care facilities. These may prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections and their consequences. However, the certainty of evidence is predominantly low to very low, due to the limited availability of evidence and the design and quality of available studies. Therefore, true effects may be substantially different from those reported here. Overall, more studies producing stronger evidence on the effects of non-pharmacological measures are needed, especially in low- and middle-income countries and on possible unintended consequences of these measures. Future research should explore the reasons behind the paucity of evidence to guide pandemic research priority setting in the future.

Prevalence of chronic HBV infection in pregnant woman attending antenatal care in a tertiary hospital in Mwanza, Tanzania: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Tanzania has a high prevalence (7.17%) of chronic hepatitis B infection. Mother to Child transmission is very common, resulting in high rate of chronic infections. Currently, there is no screening program for HBV in pregnant women. This study investigated the prevalence and risk factors for chronic HBV infection in pregnant women in a tertiary hospital in Mwanza, Tanzania. METHODS: Seven hundred and forty-three women attending antenatal care and/or delivering at the Bugando Medical Centre were enrolled. All answered a questionnaire on sociodemographic and other risk factors and were tested for HBsAg using a rapid test. In HBsAg positive mothers, maternal blood and umbilical cord blood samples collected after delivery were analyzed for serological (HBsAg, HBeAg and anti-HBe) and virologic (HBV-DNA viral load and genotype) markers. All their babies were vaccinated within 24 h of delivery. The children were followed up at 3 years of age. Data was analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U-test, independent sample T-test and logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 743 participants, 22 (3%) were positive for HBsAg, and 2 (9%) had detectable HBe-antigen. Low condom use was the only statistically significant risk factor for chronic HBV infection (OR = 3.514, 95%CI = 1.4-8.0). Of 14 maternal blood samples genotyped, 10 (71%) were genotype A and 4 (29%) were genotype D. HBV-DNA was detected in 21/22 samples, with a median of 241 IU/ml (range: 27.4-25.9 × 107 IU/ml). Five (33%) of 15 available cord blood samples were positive for HBsAg and 10 (67%) were negative. At follow-up, one child showed chronic HBV infection characteristics, one had anti-HBs level of 7 mIU/ml and 5/7(71%) had protective anti-HBs levels (> 10 mIU/ml). CONCLUSION: This cohort of pregnant women showed a lower-intermediate prevalence of HBV of 3%. In the 3 years follow-up only 1 out of 7 children showed evidence of chronic HBV infection. The child's mother with high viral load (25.9 × 107 IU/ml), was positive for HBeAg with a high degree of sequence similarity suggesting vertical transmission. These results highlight a need for improved diagnosis and treatment of HBV infection in pregnant women in Tanzania, in order to prevent vertical transmission.

Measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: In response to the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and the impact of COVID-19, national and subnational governments implemented a variety of measures in order to control the spread of the virus and the associated disease. While these measures were imposed with the intention of controlling the pandemic, they were also associated with severe psychosocial, societal, and economic implications on a societal level. One setting affected heavily by these measures is the school setting. By mid-April 2020, 192 countries had closed schools, affecting more than 90% of the world's student population. In consideration of the adverse consequences of school closures, many countries around the world reopened their schools in the months after the initial closures. To safely reopen schools and keep them open, governments implemented a broad range of measures. The evidence with regards to these measures, however, is heterogeneous, with a multitude of study designs, populations, settings, interventions and outcomes being assessed. To make sense of this heterogeneity, we conducted a rapid scoping review (8 October to 5 November 2020). This rapid scoping review is intended to serve as a precursor to a systematic review of effectiveness, which will inform guidelines issued by the World Health Organization (WHO). This review is reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist and was registered with the Open Science Framework. OBJECTIVES: To identify and comprehensively map the evidence assessing the impacts of measures implemented in the school setting to reopen schools, or keep schools open, or both, during the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic, with particular focus on the types of measures implemented in different school settings, the outcomes used to measure their impacts and the study types used to assess these. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, the CDC COVID-19 Research Articles Downloadable Database for preprints, and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease on 8 October 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that assessed the impact of measures implemented in the school setting. Eligible populations were populations at risk of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, or developing COVID-19 disease, or both, and included people both directly and indirectly impacted by interventions, including students, teachers, other school staff, and contacts of these groups, as well as the broader community. We considered all types of empirical studies, which quantitatively assessed impact including epidemiological studies, modelling studies, mixed-methods studies, and diagnostic studies that assessed the impact of relevant interventions beyond diagnostic test accuracy. Broad outcome categories of interest included infectious disease transmission-related outcomes, other harmful or beneficial health-related outcomes, and societal, economic, and ecological implications. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data from included studies in a standardized manner, and mapped them to categories within our a priori logic model where possible. Where not possible, we inductively developed new categories. In line with standard expectations for scoping reviews, the review provides an overview of the existing evidence regardless of methodological quality or risk of bias, and was not designed to synthesize effectiveness data, assess risk of bias, or characterize strength of evidence (GRADE). MAIN RESULTS: We included 42 studies that assessed measures implemented in the school setting. The majority of studies used mathematical modelling designs (n = 31), while nine studies used observational designs, and two studies used experimental or quasi-experimental designs. Studies conducted in real-world contexts or using real data focused on the WHO European region (EUR; n = 20), the WHO region of the Americas (AMR; n = 13), the West Pacific region (WPR; n = 6), and the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR; n = 1). One study conducted a global assessment and one did not report on data from, or that were applicable to, a specific country. Three broad intervention categories emerged from the included studies: organizational measures to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (n = 36), structural/environmental measures to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (n = 11), and surveillance and response measures to detect SARS-CoV-2 infections (n = 19). Most studies assessed SARS-CoV-2 transmission-related outcomes (n = 29), while others assessed healthcare utilization (n = 8), other health outcomes (n = 3), and societal, economic, and ecological outcomes (n = 5). Studies assessed both harmful and beneficial outcomes across all outcome categories. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified a heterogeneous and complex evidence base of measures implemented in the school setting. This review is an important first step in understanding the available evidence and will inform the development of rapid reviews on this topic.

Travel-related control measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: In late 2019, first cases of coronavirus disease 2019, or COVID-19, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, were reported in Wuhan, China. Subsequently COVID-19 spread rapidly around the world. To contain the ensuing pandemic, numerous countries have implemented control measures related to international travel, including border closures, partial travel restrictions, entry or exit screening, and quarantine of travellers. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of travel-related control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic on infectious disease and screening-related outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and COVID-19-specific databases, including the WHO Global Database on COVID-19 Research, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the CDC COVID-19 Research Database on 26 June 2020. We also conducted backward-citation searches with existing reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered experimental, quasi-experimental, observational and modelling studies assessing the effects of travel-related control measures affecting human travel across national borders during the COVID-19 pandemic. We also included studies concerned with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) as indirect evidence. Primary outcomes were cases avoided, cases detected and a shift in epidemic development due to the measures. Secondary outcomes were other infectious disease transmission outcomes, healthcare utilisation, resource requirements and adverse effects if identified in studies assessing at least one primary outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author screened titles and abstracts; all excluded abstracts were screened in duplicate. Two review authors independently screened full texts. One review author extracted data, assessed risk of bias and appraised study quality. At least one additional review author checked for correctness of all data reported in the 'Risk of bias' assessment, quality appraisal and data synthesis. For assessing the risk of bias and quality of included studies, we used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool for observational studies concerned with screening, ROBINS-I for observational ecological studies and a bespoke tool for modelling studies. We synthesised findings narratively. One review author assessed certainty of evidence with GRADE, and the review author team discussed ratings. MAIN RESULTS: We included 40 records reporting on 36 unique studies. We found 17 modelling studies, 7 observational screening studies and one observational ecological study on COVID-19, four modelling and six observational studies on SARS, and one modelling study on SARS and MERS, covering a variety of settings and epidemic stages. Most studies compared travel-related control measures against a counterfactual scenario in which the intervention measure was not implemented. However, some modelling studies described additional comparator scenarios, such as different levels of travel restrictions, or a combination of measures. There were concerns with the quality of many modelling studies and the risk of bias of observational studies. Many modelling studies used potentially inappropriate assumptions about the structure and input parameters of models, and failed to adequately assess uncertainty. Concerns with observational screening studies commonly related to the reference test and the flow of the screening process. Studies on COVID-19 Travel restrictions reducing cross-border travel Eleven studies employed models to simulate a reduction in travel volume; one observational ecological study assessed travel restrictions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Very low-certainty evidence from modelling studies suggests that when implemented at the beginning of the outbreak, cross-border travel restrictions may lead to a reduction in the number of new cases of between 26% to 90% (4 studies), the number of deaths (1 study), the time to outbreak of between 2 and 26 days (2 studies), the risk of outbreak of between 1% to 37% (2 studies), and the effective reproduction number (1 modelling and 1 observational ecological study). Low-certainty evidence from modelling studies suggests a reduction in the number of imported or exported cases of between 70% to 81% (5 studies), and in the growth acceleration of epidemic progression (1 study). Screening at borders with or without quarantine Evidence from three modelling studies of entry and exit symptom screening without quarantine suggests delays in the time to outbreak of between 1 to 183 days (very low-certainty evidence) and a detection rate of infected travellers of between 10% to 53% (low-certainty evidence). Six observational studies of entry and exit screening were conducted in specific settings such as evacuation flights and cruise ship outbreaks. Screening approaches varied but followed a similar structure, involving symptom screening of all individuals at departure or upon arrival, followed by quarantine, and different procedures for observation and PCR testing over a period of at least 14 days. The proportion of cases detected ranged from 0% to 91% (depending on the screening approach), and the positive predictive value ranged from 0% to 100% (very low-certainty evidence). The outcomes, however, should be interpreted in relation to both the screening approach used and the prevalence of infection among the travellers screened; for example, symptom-based screening alone generally performed worse than a combination of symptom-based and PCR screening with subsequent observation during quarantine. Quarantine of travellers Evidence from one modelling study simulating a 14-day quarantine suggests a reduction in the number of cases seeded by imported cases; larger reductions were seen with increasing levels of quarantine compliance ranging from 277 to 19 cases with rates of compliance modelled between 70% to 100% (very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: With much of the evidence deriving from modelling studies, notably for travel restrictions reducing cross-border travel and quarantine of travellers, there is a lack of 'real-life' evidence for many of these measures. The certainty of the evidence for most travel-related control measures is very low and the true effects may be substantially different from those reported here. Nevertheless, some travel-related control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic may have a positive impact on infectious disease outcomes. Broadly, travel restrictions may limit the spread of disease across national borders. Entry and exit symptom screening measures on their own are not likely to be effective in detecting a meaningful proportion of cases to prevent seeding new cases within the protected region; combined with subsequent quarantine, observation and PCR testing, the effectiveness is likely to improve. There was insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions about the effectiveness of travel-related quarantine on its own. Some of the included studies suggest that effects are likely to depend on factors such as the stage of the epidemic, the interconnectedness of countries, local measures undertaken to contain community transmission, and the extent of implementation and adherence.

[Representation of Social Determinants of Health in German Medical Education]. / Soziale Determinanten von Gesundheit als Lehr- und Prüfungsinhalte im Medizinstudium.

OBJECTIVE: The World Health Organization (WHO) has emphasized the need for a health workforce trained in recognising, understanding and acting on the social determinants of health (SDH). However, little is known about how current medical education prepares graduates to meet this challenge. This study analyses the extent to which content on SDH is incorporated in the German medical curriculum. METHOD: This work is based on a qualitative and quantitative content analysis of 3 key document groups, outlining what medical schools are expected to teach and defining what medical students are expected to know on graduation. RESULTS: The assessment reveals important gaps in the representation of SDH in key frameworks for German medical education. Only between 4 and 27% of the analysed document-elements contained reference to any SDH-related issues, with 0-3% of those elements containing explicit references to SDH. While some aspects were widely covered (e. g. topics of occupational health), other topics such as health inequalities or determinants outside of the health care system were not or hardly represented. CONCLUSIONS: A stronger and more explicit representation of SDH during medical education could help to prepare the new health workforce for current and future challenges in our globalised world. The current reform process of the National Competency-Based Catalogue of Learning Objectives for Medicine should strive to fill the gaps, e. g. by putting more emphasis on aspects of poverty and health, health inequalities and issues of access to healthcare.

[Public Health in Germany From The Perspective of Young Professionals]. / Öffentliche Gesundheit in Deutschland: Eine Perspektive des Nachwuchses.

The current reform process of Germany's public health system has opened a window of opportunity for strengthening this field in research, policy and practice in Germany. The present article discusses challenges and necessary measures from the perspective of young professionals. The authors argue that public health education and training in Germany needs to be strengthened and reformed. Moreover, Germany's public health community must create and strengthen structures and processes needed to make its voice heard more strongly in politics and society, including an effective professional organization. Discussions on these challenges have begun in a number of fora and should be translated into concrete actions soon.

[Disease Prevention and Health Promotion in Germany: A Qualitative Analysis of the Federal Goverment's Coalition Agreement]. / Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung im Koalitionsvertrag: Eine qualitative Analyse.

BACKGROUND: The creation of healthful living conditions has contributed to improving health and prolonging life in Germany and worldwide. Despite this progress, avoidable behavioural, occupational and environmental risk factors still contribute considerably to the burden of disease in Germany. Many of these risk factors are strongly influenced by political determinants. The coalition agreement outlining the agenda of Germany's federal government for 2018-2022 provides insights regarding relevant political priorities and plans. METHODS: We performed qualitative content analysis of the coalition agreement signed on March 12, 2018 by Germany's governing parties with regard to content related to disease prevention and health promotion. We present results in tables and narratively and discuss them against the background of evidence-based scientific recommendations and in the national and international political context. RESULTS: The coalition agreement discusses various measures to strengthen disease prevention in and health promotion in general, to support the prevention of specific disease groups, and to reduce the burden of a number of behavioural, occupational and environmental risk factors. This includes an evaluation and reform of Germany's Law for Health Promotion and Prevention, a strengthening of relevant research capacities, the development of a national obesity strategy, and measures to increase vaccination rates. DISCUSSION: The extensive discussion of health promotion and disease prevention in the coalition agreement is laudable. However, the agreements fail to mention a number of important approaches, such as the regulation of tobacco and alcohol marketing and food and beverage taxation. Moreover, many statements remain vague. Adoption and implementation of effective measures will therefore require the attention and political pressure from the scientific community, civil society, the media, and members of the parliament from both government and opposition parties. The mid-term evaluation of the coalition agreement will be an opportunity to critically examine the government's achievement to date.

[Education and Training in Public Health - Results of the Working Group 9 of the Forum Future Public Health, Berlin 2016]. / Lehre, Fort- und Weiterbildung in Public Health.

The need for a qualified public health workforce can only be met by appropriate provision of a wide spectrum of basic, advanced and continuing education and training programs on public health that meet international standards. At the same time, efforts must be made to offer young academics attractive career opportunities. Training in public health competences must also be provided for allied professionals in health care and for professions with influence on the determinants of health such as urban planning or agricultural science. This report from a working group meeting at the 'Public Health Zukunftsforum 2016' in Berlin presents ideas for the further development of training in public health in Germany.

Use of the WHO Nutrient Profile Model for Food Marketing Regulation in Germany: Feasibility and Public Health Implications.

INTRODUCTION: Exposure to marketing for foods high in sugar, salt, and fat is considered a key risk factor for childhood obesity. To support efforts to limit such marketing, the World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe has developed a nutrient profile model (WHO NPM). Germany's Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture plans to use this model in proposed new food marketing legislation, but it has not yet been tested in Germany. The present study therefore assesses the feasibility and implications of implementing the WHO NPM in Germany. METHODS: We applied the WHO NPM to a random sample of 660 food and beverage products across 22 product categories on the German market drawn from Open Food Facts, a publicly available product database. We calculated the share of products permitted for marketing to children based on the WHO NPM, both under current market conditions and for several hypothetical reformulation scenarios. We also assessed effects of adaptations to and practical challenges in applying the WHO NPM. RESULTS: The median share of products permitted for marketing to children across the model's 22 product categories was 20% (interquartile range (IQR) 3-59%) and increased to 38% (IQR 11-73%) with model adaptations for fruit juice and milk proposed by the German government. With targeted reformulation (assuming a 30% reduction in fat, sugar, sodium, and/or energy), the share of products permitted for marketing to children increased substantially (defined as a relative increase by at least 50%) in several product categories (including bread, processed meat, yogurt and cream, ready-made and convenience foods, and savoury plant-based foods) but changed less in the remaining categories. Practical challenges included the ascertainment of the trans-fatty acid content of products, among others. CONCLUSION: The application of the WHO NPM in Germany was found to be feasible. Its use in the proposed legislation on food marketing in Germany seems likely to serve its intended public health objective of limiting marketing in a targeted manner specifically for less healthy products. It seems plausible that it may incentivise reformulation in some product categories. Practical challenges could be addressed with appropriate adaptations and procedural provisions.

Design and Implementation of Brief Interventions to Address Noncommunicable Diseases in Uzbekistan.

In Uzbekistan, NCDs, including cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and diabetes, accounted for over 80% of mortality in 2019. In 2021, national stakeholders, in conjunction with the World Health Organization, identified brief interventions (BIs) to implement in primary health care settings to change unhealthy behaviors and reduce the burden of NCDs in the country. BIs consist of a validated set of questions to identify and measure NCD behavioral risk factors and a short conversation with patients/clients about their behavior, as well as the provision of a referral opportunity for further in-depth counseling or treatment if needed. We used a multimethod approach of document review, participatory workshops, and key informant interviews to describe how BIs were designed and implemented in Uzbekistan and generated a theory of change for its large-scale implementation. BIs in Uzbekistan targeted 4 risk factors (alcohol use, tobacco use, unhealthy diet, and physical inactivity) and entailed training clinicians on how to conduct behavioral change counseling using the 5As and 5Rs toolkit, conducting supportive supervision, and using feedback to improve service delivery. The program was collaboratively designed by multiple stakeholders across sectors, including the Ministries of Health, Higher Education, Science, and Innovations, with buy-in from key political leaders. The potential impact of the program (i.e., reducing the incidence of NCDs) was mediated by several intermediate and implementation outcomes at the individual, primary care, and community levels operating along multiple pathways. Significant health system challenges remain to the program, such as limited human resources, lack of incentives for clinicians, outdated systems and data collection processes for performance monitoring, and coordination among different relevant sectors. These and other challenges will need to be addressed to ensure the effective large-scale implementation of BIs in Uzbekistan and similar LMICs.

Implementation of School Nutrition Policies to Address Noncommunicable Diseases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.

Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), including cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and diabetes, account for over 80% of mortality in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan in 2019, and unhealthy dietary behaviors are a major risk factor for NCDs in both countries. In 2021, national stakeholders, in consultation with the World Health Organization, identified school nutrition policies (SNPs) as a major approach to reducing the burden of NCDs in both countries. The SNPs included interventions implemented through a multistakeholder and multisectoral arrangement that aimed to improve the health and nutrition status of children and young people by providing healthy food/beverages and restricting unhealthy foods or beverages in schools. We used a multimethod approach of document review, participatory workshops, and key informant interviews to generate theories of change for the large-scale implementation of SNPs and describe the implementation processes to date, including key implementation and health system challenges, salient implementation strategies, and implementation outcomes in both countries. Multiple pathways for enacting and implementing SNPs successfully were identified. However, significant health system challenges, such as the lack of accountability for contracting and tender processes and coordination among different sectors, continue to hamper the large-scale implementation of these policies in both countries. The pathways, theories, and implementation outcomes identified will facilitate the development of implementation strategies and systematic learning and evaluation around SNPs for NCD prevention and control programs in the Central Asian region and other low- and middle-income countries more broadly.

Policy implementation and priorities to create healthy food environments using the Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI): A pooled level analysis across eleven European countries.

Background: Food environments have been recognised as highly influential on population diets. Government policies have great potential to create healthy food environments to promote healthy diets. This study aimed to evaluate food environment policy implementation in European countries and identify priority actions for governments to create healthy food environments. Methods: The Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI) was used to evaluate the level of food environment policy and infrastructure support implementation in Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, and Spain in 2019-2021. Evidence of implementation of food environment policies was compiled in each country and validated by government officials. National experts evaluated the implementation of policies and identified priority recommendations. Findings: Finland had the highest proportion (32%, n = 7/22) of policies shaping food environments with a "high" level of implementation. Slovenia and Poland had the highest proportion of policies rated at very low implementation (42%, n = 10/24 and 36%, n = 9/25 respectively). Policies regarding food provision, promotion, retail, funding, monitoring, and health in all policies were identified as the most important gaps across the European countries. Experts recommended immediate action on setting standards for nutrients of concern in processed foods, improvement of school food environments, fruit and vegetable subsidies, unhealthy food and beverage taxation, and restrictions on unhealthy food marketing to children. Interpretation: Immediate implementation of policies and infrastructure support that prioritize action towards healthy food environments is urgently required to tackle the burden of obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases in Europe. Funding: This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 774548 and from the Joint Programming Initiative "A Healthy Diet for a Healthy Life".

[Expert committees in German public health policymaking during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: a document analysis]. / Politikberatung durch Expert*innenräte in der SARS-CoV-2-Pandemie in Deutschland: Eine Dokumentenanalyse aus Public-Health-Perspektive.

INTRODUCTION: During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, policymakers have to make far-reaching decisions that should be supported by scientific evidence. This presents a major challenge, given the limited availability of evidence, especially in the early phases of the pandemic. Decision-makers thus turned to scientific experts to help to convey and contextualize the evidence for public health policymaking. The way in which these experts were consulted varied widely. Some decision-makers called on expert committees in which they convened multiple experts from different disciplines. However, the composition and role of these committees have raised questions of transparency and representation. This study examines whether and how expert committees in Germany were convened at the federal and national level to advise governments and ministries during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We investigated the disciplinary composition, gender representation and the transparency related to the convening of these bodies, work processes and the accessibility of results. METHODS: We performed a multi-stage document analysis. Between May and July 2020, we submitted freedom-of-information requests to the governmental institutions at both a federal and a national level. In addition to analysing the responses to these requests, we conducted a thorough search and analysis of the i) pandemic preparedness plans, (ii) official press releases and (iii) minor interpellations ("Kleine Anfragen") at the federal and state level. We included documents on expert committees in the SARS-CoV-2 context for the period from January to the beginning of December 2020 and carried out a qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: We identified a total of 21 expert committees that were established in ten federal states and four federal ministries. In eleven committees, the members were known by name, with women making up 26 % of the members. Biomedical disciplines such as virology, hygiene, medicine, and biology were the most commonly represented. Other disciplines including economics, law and sociology, and non-scientific experts were represented in seven federal states. The members of ten committees were not known by name. These committees covered different thematic areas (school and day-care, civil participation, medicine and care, economic topics), and their members were more commonly practitioners or came from affected populations. DISCUSSION: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has led to an increased consultation of experts in public health policymaking. However, expert committees in Germany are not sufficiently representative and interdisciplinary to take different perspectives into account and ultimately advise politicians in complex pandemic situations. Furthermore, the work of these committees is not sufficiently transparent because access to information is limited. CONCLUSION: Due to this lack of transparency, it is unclear whether and how the expert committees exerted an influence on politics. Transparency of political decision-making processes and the consideration of pluralistic perspectives are considered essential for the legitimation and quality of political decisions in a pandemic and should therefore be strengthened in pandemic management in Germany.

Travel-related control measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic: an evidence map.

OBJECTIVES: To comprehensively map the existing evidence assessing the impact of travel-related control measures for containment of the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Rapid evidence map. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science, and COVID-19 specific databases offered by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the WHO. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies in human populations susceptible to SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19, SARS-CoV-1/severe acute respiratory syndrome, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus/Middle East respiratory syndrome or influenza. Interventions of interest were travel-related control measures affecting travel across national or subnational borders. Outcomes of interest included infectious disease, screening, other health, economic and social outcomes. We considered all empirical studies that quantitatively evaluate impact available in Armenian, English, French, German, Italian and Russian based on the team's language capacities. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We extracted data from included studies in a standardised manner and mapped them to a priori and (one) post hoc defined categories. RESULTS: We included 122 studies assessing travel-related control measures. These studies were undertaken across the globe, most in the Western Pacific region (n=71). A large proportion of studies focused on COVID-19 (n=59), but a number of studies also examined SARS, MERS and influenza. We identified studies on border closures (n=3), entry/exit screening (n=31), travel-related quarantine (n=6), travel bans (n=8) and travel restrictions (n=25). Many addressed a bundle of travel-related control measures (n=49). Most studies assessed infectious disease (n=98) and/or screening-related (n=25) outcomes; we found only limited evidence on economic and social outcomes. Studies applied numerous methods, both inferential and descriptive in nature, ranging from simple observational methods to complex modelling techniques. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a heterogeneous and complex evidence base on travel-related control measures. While this map is not sufficient to assess the effectiveness of different measures, it outlines aspects regarding interventions and outcomes, as well as study methodology and reporting that could inform future research and evidence synthesis.

How are social determinants of health represented in German medical education?: a qualitative content analysis of key-curricular documents.

OBJECTIVE: The WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health (SDH) has called for a health workforce trained in recognising, understanding and acting on the SDH. However, little is known about how current medical education prepares graduates for this challenge. This study analyses the extent to which the German medical education incorporates content on SDH. DESIGN: Following a published protocol, in 2018, we conducted a qualitative and quantitative content analysis of three key document groups, defining and guiding what medical schools are expected to teach and what medical students are expected to know when graduating in Germany. We developed the coding system in a mixed inductive and deductive approach based on key WHO documents. SETTING: Medical schools and the medical education system in Germany. RESULTS: Important gaps exist in the representation of SDH in medical education in Germany. Between 3% and 27% of the analysed document-elements made reference to SDH and only 0%-3% of those document elements made explicit references to SDH. While some aspects were covered widely (eg, topics of occupational health, early childhood development and hygiene), other topics such as health inequalities or determinants outside of the healthcare system were not or hardly represented. CONCLUSIONS: A stronger and more explicit representation of SDH in German medical education is needed to prepare the new health workforce for current and future challenges in our globalised world and for medical schools to be socially accountable.

Adverse effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with viral respiratory infections: rapid systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in patients with viral respiratory infections on acute severe adverse outcomes, healthcare utilisation, quality of life and long-term survival. DESIGN: Rapid systematic review. PARTICIPANTS: Humans with viral respiratory infections, exposed to systemic NSAIDs. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: Acute severe adverse outcomes, healthcare utilisation, quality of life and long-term survival. RESULTS: We screened 10 999 titles and abstracts and 738 full texts, including 87 studies. No studies addressed COVID-19, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome or Middle East Respiratory Syndrome; none examined inpatient healthcare utilisation, quality of life or long-term survival. Effects of NSAIDs on mortality and cardiovascular events in adults with viral respiratory infections are unclear (three observational studies; very low certainty). Children with empyema and gastrointestinal bleeding may be more likely to have taken NSAIDs than children without these conditions (two observational studies; very low certainty). In patients aged 3 years and older with acute respiratory infections, ibuprofen is associated with a higher rate of reconsultations with general practitioners than paracetamol (one randomised controlled trial (RCT); low certainty). The difference in death from all causes and hospitalisation for renal failure and anaphylaxis between children with fever receiving ibuprofen versus paracetamol is likely to be less than 1 per 10 000 (1 RCT; moderate/high certainty). Twenty-eight studies in adults and 42 studies in children report adverse event counts. Most report that no severe adverse events occurred. Due to methodological limitations of adverse event counts, this evidence should be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear whether the use of NSAIDs increases the risk of severe adverse outcomes in patients with viral respiratory infections. This absence of evidence should not be interpreted as evidence for the absence of such risk. This is a rapid review with a number of limitations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020176056.