Public participation in decisions about measures to manage the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments and health authorities faced tough decisions about infection prevention and control measures such as social distancing, face masks and travel. Judgements underlying those decisions require democratic input, as well as expert input. The aim of this review is to inform decisions about how best to achieve public participation in decisions about public health and social interventions in the context of a pandemic or other public health emergencies. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review examples of public participation in decisions by governments and health authorities about how to control the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: We searched Participedia and relevant databases in August 2022. Two authors reviewed titles and abstracts and one author screened publications promoted to full text. One author extracted data from included reports using a standard data-extraction form. A second author checked 10% of the extraction forms. We conducted a structured synthesis using framework analysis. RESULTS: We included 24 reports (18 from Participedia). Most took place in high-income countries (n=23), involved 'consulting' the public (n=17) and involved public meetings (usually online). Two initiatives reported explicit support for critical thinking. 11 initiatives were formally evaluated (only three reported impacts). Many initiatives did not contribute to a decision, and 17 initiatives did not include any explicit decision-making criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Decisions about how to manage the COVID-19 pandemic affected nearly everyone. While public participation in those decisions had the potential to improve the quality of the judgements and decisions that were made, build trust, improve adherence and help ensure transparency and accountability, few examples of such initiatives have been reported and most of those have not been formally evaluated. Identified initiatives did point out potential good practices related to online engagement, crowdsourcing and addressing potential power imbalance. Future research should address improved reporting of initiatives, explicit decision-making criteria, support for critical thinking, engagement of marginalised groups and decision-makers and communication with the public. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: 358991.

Systematic mapping of existing tools to appraise methodological strengths and limitations of qualitative research: first stage in the development of the CAMELOT tool.

BACKGROUND: Qualitative evidence synthesis is increasingly used alongside reviews of effectiveness to inform guidelines and other decisions. To support this use, the GRADE-CERQual approach was developed to assess and communicate the confidence we have in findings from reviews of qualitative research. One component of this approach requires an appraisal of the methodological limitations of studies contributing data to a review finding. Diverse critical appraisal tools for qualitative research are currently being used. However, it is unclear which tool is most appropriate for informing a GRADE-CERQual assessment of confidence. METHODOLOGY: We searched for tools that were explicitly intended for critically appraising the methodological quality of qualitative research. We searched the reference lists of existing methodological reviews for critical appraisal tools, and also conducted a systematic search in June 2016 for tools published in health science and social science databases. Two reviewers screened identified titles and abstracts, and then screened the full text of potentially relevant articles. One reviewer extracted data from each article and a second reviewer checked the extraction. We used a best-fit framework synthesis approach to code checklist criteria from each identified tool and to organise these into themes. RESULTS: We identified 102 critical appraisal tools: 71 tools had previously been included in methodological reviews, and 31 tools were identified from our systematic search. Almost half of the tools were published after 2010. Few authors described how their tool was developed, or why a new tool was needed. After coding all criteria, we developed a framework that included 22 themes. None of the tools included all 22 themes. Some themes were included in up to 95 of the tools. CONCLUSION: It is problematic that researchers continue to develop new tools without adequately examining the many tools that already exist. Furthermore, the plethora of tools, old and new, indicates a lack of consensus regarding the best tool to use, and an absence of empirical evidence about the most important criteria for assessing the methodological limitations of qualitative research, including in the context of use with GRADE-CERQual.

Effectiveness of interventions to reduce homelessness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

This Campbell systematic review examines the effectiveness of interventions to reduce homelessness and increase residential stability for individuals who are homeless, or at risk of becoming homeless. Forty-three studies were included in the review, 37 of which are from the USA. Included interventions perform better than the usual services at reducing homelessness or improving housing stability in all comparisons. These interventions are: High intensity case managementHousing FirstCritical time interventionAbstinence-contingent housingNon-abstinence-contingent housing with high intensity case managementHousing vouchersResidential treatment These interventions seem to have similar beneficial effects, so it is unclear which of these is best with respect to reducing homelessness and increasing housing stability. Plain Language Summary: Interventions to reduce homelessness and improve housing stability are effective: There are large numbers of homeless people around the world. Interventions to address homelessness seem to be effective, though better quality evidence is required.What is this review about?: There are large numbers of homeless people around the world. Recent estimates are over 500,000 people in the USA, 100,000 in Australia and 30,000 in Sweden. Efforts to combat homelessness have been made on national levels as well as at local government levels.This review assesses the effectiveness of interventions combining housing and case management as a means to reduce homelessness and increase residential stability for individuals who are homeless, or at risk of becoming homeless.What studies are included?: Included studies were randomized controlled trials of interventions for individuals who were already, or at-risk of becoming, homeless, and which measured impact on homelessness or housing stability with follow-up of at least one year.A total of 43 studies were included. The majority of the studies (37) were conducted in the United States, with three from the United Kingdom and one each from Australia, Canada, and Denmark.What are the main findings of this review?: Included interventions perform better than the usual services at reducing homelessness or improving housing stability in all comparisons. These interventions are: High intensity case managementHousing FirstCritical time interventionAbstinence-contingent housingNon-abstinence-contingent housing with high intensity case managementHousing vouchersResidential treatment These interventions seem to have similar beneficial effects, so it is unclear which of these is best with respect to reducing homelessness and increasing housing stability.What do the findings of this review mean?: A range of housing programs and case management interventions appear to reduce homelessness and improve housing stability, compared to usual services.However, there is uncertainty in this finding as most the studies have risk of bias due to poor reporting, lack of blinding, or poor randomization or allocation concealment of participants. In addition to the general need for better conducted and reported studies, there are specific gaps in the research with respect to: 1) disadvantaged youth; 2) abstinence-contingent housing with case management or day treatment; 3) non-abstinence contingent housing comparing group vs independent living; 4) Housing First compared to interventions other than usual services, and; 5) studies outside of the USA.How up-to-date is this review?: The review authors searched for studies published up to January 2016. This Campbell systematic review was published in February 2018. Executive summary: Background: The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 25) states that everyone has a right to housing. However, this right is far from being realized for many people worldwide. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), there are approximately 100 million homeless people worldwide. The aim of this report is to contribute evidence to inform future decision making and practice for preventing and reducing homelessness.Objectives: To identify, appraise and summarize the evidence on the effectiveness of housing programs and case management to improve housing stability and reduce homelessness among people who are homeless or at-risk of becoming homeless.Search methods: We conducted a systematic review in accordance with the Norwegian Knowledge Centre's handbook. We systematically searched for literature in relevant databases and conducted a grey literature search which was last updated in January 2016.Selection criteria: Randomized controlled trials that included individuals who were already, or at-risk of becoming, homeless were included if they examined the effectiveness of relevant interventions on homelessness or housing stability. There were no limitations regarding language, country or length of homelessness. Two reviewers screened 2,918 abstracts and titles for inclusion. They read potentially relevant references in full, and included relevant studies in the review.Data collection and analysis: We pooled the results and conducted meta-analyses when possible. Our certainty in the primary outcomes was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation for effectiveness approach (GRADE).Results: We included 43 relevant studies (described in 78 publications) that examined the effectiveness of housing programs and/or case management services on homelessness and/or housing stability. The results are summarized below. Briefly, we found that the included interventions performed better than the usual services in all comparisons. However, certainty in the findings varied from very low to moderate. Most of the studies were assessed as having high risk of bias due to poor reporting, lack of blinding, or poor randomization and/or allocation concealment of participants.Case management: Case management is a process where clients are assigned case managers who assess, plan and facilitate access to health and social services necessary for the client's recovery. The intensity of these services can vary. One specific model is Critical time intervention, which is based on the same principles, but offered in three three-month periods that decrease in intensity.High intensity case management compared to usual services has generally more positive effects: It probably reduces the number of individuals who are homeless after 12-18 months by almost half (RR=0.59, 95%CI=0.41 to 0.87)(moderate certainty evidence); It may increase the number of people living in stable housing after 12-18 months and reduce the number of days an individual spends homeless (low certainty evidence), however; it may have no effect on the number of individuals who experience some homelessness during a two year period (low certainty evidence). When compared to low intensity case management, it may have little or no effect on time spent in stable housing (low certainty evidence).Critical time intervention compared to usual services may 1) have no effect on the number of people who experience homelessness, 2) lead to fewer days spent homeless, 3) lead to more days spent not homeless and, 4) reduce the amount of time it takes to move from shelter to independent housing (low certainty evidence).Abstinence-contingent housing programs: Abstinence-contingent housing is housing provided with the expectation that residents will remain sober. The results showed that abstinence-contingent housing may lead to fewer days spent homeless, compared with usual services (low certainty evidence).Non-abstinence-contingent housing programs: Non-abstinence-contingent housing is housing provided with no expectations regarding sobriety of residents. Housing First is the name of one specific non-abstinence-contingent housing program. When compared to usual services Housing First probably reduces the number of days spent homeless (MD=-62.5, 95%CI=-86.86 to -38.14) and increases the number of days in stable housing (MD=110.1, 95%CI=93.05 to 127.15) (moderate certainty evidence). In addition, it may increase the number of people placed in permanent housing after 20 months (low certainty evidence).Non-abstinence-contingent housing programs (not specified as Housing First) in combination with high intensity case management may reduce homelessness, compared to usual services (low certainty evidence). Group living arrangements may be better than individual apartments at reducing homelessness (low certainty evidence).Housing vouchers with case management: Housing vouchers is a housing allowance given to certain groups of people who qualify. The results showed that it mayreduce homelessness and improve housing stability, compared with usual services or case management (low certainty evidence).Residential treatment with case management: Residential treatment is a type of housing offered to clients who also need treatment for mental illness or substance abuse. We found that it mayreduce homelessness and improve housing stability, compared with usual services (low certainty evidence).Authors' conclusions: We found that a range of housing programs and case management interventions appear to reduce homelessness and improve housing stability, compared to usual services. The findings showed no indication of housing programs or case management resulting in poorer outcomes for homeless or at-risk individuals than usual services.Aside from a general need for better conducted and reported studies, there are specific gaps in the research. We identified research gaps concerning: 1)Disadvantaged youth; 2) Abstinence-contingent housing with case management or day treatment; 3) Non-abstinence contingent housing, specifically different living arrangements (group vs independent living); 4) Housing First compared to interventions other than usual services, and; 5) All interventions from contexts other than the USA.