Public health emergency preparedness for infectious disease emergencies: a scoping review of recent evidence.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic continues to demonstrate the risks and profound health impacts that result from infectious disease emergencies. Emergency preparedness has been defined as the knowledge, capacity and organizational systems that governments, response and recovery organizations, communities and individuals develop to anticipate, respond to, or recover from emergencies. This scoping review explored recent literature on priority areas and indicators for public health emergency preparedness (PHEP) with a focus on infectious disease emergencies. METHODS: Using scoping review methodology, a comprehensive search was conducted for indexed and grey literature with a focus on records published from 2017 to 2020 onward, respectively. Records were included if they: (a) described PHEP, (b) focused on an infectious emergency, and (c) were published in an Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development country. An evidence-based all-hazards Resilience Framework for PHEP consisting of 11 elements was used as a reference point to identify additional areas of preparedness that have emerged in recent publications. The findings were analyzed deductively and summarized thematically. RESULTS: The included publications largely aligned with the 11 elements of the all-hazards Resilience Framework for PHEP. In particular, the elements related to collaborative networks, community engagement, risk analysis and communication were frequently observed across the publications included in this review. Ten emergent themes were identified that expand on the Resilience Framework for PHEP specific to infectious diseases. Planning to mitigate inequities was a key finding of this review, it was the most frequently identified emergent theme. Additional emergent themes were: research and evidence-informed decision making, building vaccination capacity, building laboratory and diagnostic system capacity, building infection prevention and control capacity, financial investment in infrastructure, health system capacity, climate and environmental health, public health legislation and phases of preparedness. CONCLUSION: The themes from this review contribute to the evolving understanding of critical public health emergency preparedness actions. The themes expand on the 11 elements outlined in the Resilience Framework for PHEP, specifically relevant to pandemics and infectious disease emergencies. Further research will be important to validate these findings, and expand understanding of how refinements to PHEP frameworks and indicators can support public health practice.

Effect of Wearing a Face Mask on Hand-to-Face Contact by Children in a Simulated School Environment: The Back-to-School COVID-19 Simulation Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Wearing a face mask in school can reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission but it may also lead to increased hand-to-face contact, which in turn could increase infection risk through self-inoculation. Objective: To evaluate the effect of wearing a face mask on hand-to-face contact by children while at school. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective randomized clinical trial randomized students from junior kindergarten to grade 12 at 2 schools in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, during August 2020 in a 1:1 ratio to either a mask or control class during a 2-day school simulation. Classes were video recorded from 4 angles to accurately capture outcomes. Interventions: Participants in the mask arm were instructed to bring their own mask and wear it at all times. Students assigned to control classes were not required to mask at any time (grade 4 and lower) or in the classroom where physical distancing could be maintained (grade 5 and up). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of hand-to-face contacts per student per hour on day 2 of the simulation. Secondary outcomes included hand-to-mucosa contacts and hand-to-nonmucosa contacts. A mixed Poisson regression model was used to derive rate ratios (RRs), adjusted for age and sex with a random intercept for class with bootstrapped 95% CIs. Results: A total of 174 students underwent randomization and 171 students (mask group, 50.6% male; control group, 52.4% male) attended school on day 2. The rate of hand-to-face contacts did not differ significantly between the mask and the control groups (88.2 vs 88.7 events per student per hour; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.78-1.28; P = >.99). When compared with the control group, the rate of hand-to-mucosa contacts was significantly lower in the mask group (RR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.07-0.21), while the rate of hand-to-nonmucosa contacts was higher (RR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.08-1.82). Conclusions and Relevance: In this clinical trial of simulated school attendance, hand-to-face contacts did not differ among students required to wear face masks vs students not required to wear face masks; however, hand-to-mucosa contracts were lower in the face mask group. This suggests that mask wearing is unlikely to increase infection risk through self-inoculation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04531254.