Social contact patterns during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Norway: insights from a panel study, April to September 2020.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries adopted social distance measures and lockdowns of varying strictness. Social contact patterns are essential in driving the spread of respiratory infections, and country-specific measurements are needed. This study aimed to gain insights into changes in social contacts and behaviour during the early pandemic phase in Norway. METHODS: We conducted an online panel study among a nationally representative sample of Norwegian adults by age and gender. The panel study included six data collections waves between April and September 2020, and 2017 survey data from a random sample of the Norwegian population (including children < 18 years old) were used as baseline. The market research company Ipsos was responsible for carrying out the 2020 surveys. We calculated mean daily contacts, and estimated age-stratified contact matrices during the study period employing imputation of child-to-child contacts. We used the next-generation method to assess the relative reduction of R0 and compared the results to reproduction numbers estimated for Norway during the 2020 study period. RESULTS: Over the six waves in 2020, 5 938 observations/responses were registered from 1 718 individuals who reported data on 22 074 contacts. The mean daily number of contacts among adults varied between 3.2 (95%CI 3.0-3.4) to 3.9 (95%CI 3.6-4.2) across the data collection waves, representing a 67-73% decline compared to pre-pandemic levels (baseline). Fewer contacts in the community setting largely drove the reduction; the drop was most prominent among younger adults. Despite gradual easing of social distance measures during the survey period, the estimated population contact matrices remained relatively stable and displayed more inter-age group mixing than at baseline. Contacts within households and the community outside schools and workplaces contributed most to social encounters. Using the next-generation method R0 was found to be roughly 25% of pre-pandemic levels during the study period, suggesting controlled transmission. CONCLUSION: Social contacts declined significantly in the months following the March 2020 lockdown, aligning with implementation of stringent social distancing measures. These findings contribute valuable empirical information into the social behaviour in Norway during the early pandemic, which can be used to enhance policy-relevant models for addressing future crises when mitigation measures might be implemented.

Effects of non-compulsory and mandatory COVID-19 interventions on travel distance and time away from home, Norway, 2021.

BackgroundGiven the societal, economic and health costs of COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI), it is important to assess their effects. Human mobility serves as a surrogate measure for human contacts and compliance with NPI. In Nordic countries, NPI have mostly been advised and sometimes made mandatory. It is unclear if making NPI mandatory further reduced mobility.AimWe investigated the effect of non-compulsory and follow-up mandatory measures in major cities and rural regions on human mobility in Norway. We identified NPI categories that most affected mobility.MethodsWe used mobile phone mobility data from the largest Norwegian operator. We analysed non-compulsory and mandatory measures with before-after and synthetic difference-in-differences approaches. By regression, we investigated the impact of different NPI on mobility.ResultsNationally and in less populated regions, time travelled, but not distance, decreased after follow-up mandatory measures. In urban areas, however, distance decreased after follow-up mandates, and the reduction exceeded the decrease after initial non-compulsory measures. Stricter metre rules, gyms reopening, and restaurants and shops reopening were significantly associated with changes in mobility.ConclusionOverall, distance travelled from home decreased after non-compulsory measures, and in urban areas, distance further decreased after follow-up mandates. Time travelled reduced more after mandates than after non-compulsory measures for all regions and interventions. Stricter distancing and reopening of gyms, restaurants and shops were associated with changes in mobility.

Seroprevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in the adult population during the pre-vaccination period, Norway, winter 2020/21.

BackgroundSince March 2020, 440 million people worldwide have been diagnosed with COVID-19, but the true number of infections with SARS-CoV-2 is higher. SARS-CoV-2 antibody seroprevalence can add crucial epidemiological information about population infection dynamics.AimTo provide a large population-based SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence survey from Norway; we estimated SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence before introduction of vaccines and described its distribution across demographic groups.MethodsIn this population-based cross-sectional study, a total of 110,000 people aged 16 years or older were randomly selected during November-December 2020 and invited to complete a questionnaire and provide a dried blood spot (DBS) sample.ResultsThe response rate was 30% (31,458/104,637); compliance rate for return of DBS samples was 88% (27,700/31,458). National weighted and adjusted seroprevalence was 0.9% (95% CI (confidence interval): 0.7-1.0). Seroprevalence was highest among those aged 16-19 years (1.9%; 95% CI: 0.9-2.9), those born outside the Nordic countries 1.4% (95% CI: 1.0-1.9), and in the counties of Oslo 1.7% (95% CI: 1.2-2.2) and Vestland 1.4% (95% CI: 0.9-1.8). The ratio of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence (0.9%) to cumulative incidence of virologically detected cases by mid-December 2020 (0.8%) was slightly above one. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence was low before introduction of vaccines in Norway and was comparable to virologically detected cases, indicating that most cases in the first 10 months of the pandemic were detected.ConclusionFindings suggest that preventive measures including contact tracing have been effective, people complied with physical distancing recommendations, and local efforts to contain outbreaks have been essential.

Rapid reviews for rapid decision-making during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, Norway, 2020.

In response to urgent needs for updated evidence for decision-making on various aspects related to coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the Norwegian Institute of Public Health established a rapid review team. Using simplified processes and shortcuts, this team produces summary reviews on request within 1-3 days that inform advice provided by the institute. All reviews are published with explicit messages about the risk of overlooking key evidence or making misguided judgements by using such rapid processes.

Poor self-reported adherence to COVID-19-related quarantine/isolation requests, Norway, April to July 2020.

To limit SARS-CoV-2 spread, quarantine and isolation are obligatory in several situations in Norway. We found low self-reported adherence to requested measures among 1,704 individuals (42%; 95% confidence interval: 37-48). Adherence was lower in May-June-July (33-38%) compared with April (66%), and higher among those experiencing COVID-19-compatible symptoms (71%) compared with those without (28%). These findings suggest that consideration is required of strategies to improve people's adherence to quarantine and isolation.

PRECEPT: an evidence assessment framework for infectious disease epidemiology, prevention and control.

Decisions in public health should be based on the best available evidence, reviewed and appraised using a rigorous and transparent methodology. The Project on a Framework for Rating Evidence in Public Health (PRECEPT) defined a methodology for evaluating and grading evidence in infectious disease epidemiology, prevention and control that takes different domains and question types into consideration. The methodology rates evidence in four domains: disease burden, risk factors, diagnostics and intervention. The framework guiding it has four steps going from overarching questions to an evidence statement. In step 1, approaches for identifying relevant key areas and developing specific questions to guide systematic evidence searches are described. In step 2, methodological guidance for conducting systematic reviews is provided; 15 study quality appraisal tools are proposed and an algorithm is given for matching a given study design with a tool. In step 3, a standardised evidence-grading scheme using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE) methodology is provided, whereby findings are documented in evidence profiles. Step 4 consists of preparing a narrative evidence summary. Users of this framework should be able to evaluate and grade scientific evidence from the four domains in a transparent and reproducible way.

Guidelines International Network: Principles for Disclosure of Interests and Management of Conflicts in Guidelines.

Conflicts of interest (COIs) have been defined by the American Thoracic Society as "a divergence between an individual's private interests and his or her professional obligations such that an independent observer might reasonably question whether the individual's professional actions or decisions are motivated by personal gain, such as direct financial, academic advancement, clinical revenue streams, or community standing." In the context of guideline development, the concerns are not simply about identifying and disclosing direct financial or indirect COIs. Despite this recognition, the management of COIs in guidelines is often unsatisfactory. In response to requests from its international membership and informed by existing syntheses of the evidence and policies of international organizations, the Guidelines International Network Board of Trustees developed guidance on the disclosure of interests and management of COIs. Current approaches are relatively similar throughout the guideline development community, with an increasing recognition of the importance of disclosing and managing indirect COIs. Although there are differences in detail among the approaches, the similarities allow for the formulation of 9 core principles for managing COIs. In formulating these principles, the Guidelines International Network Board of Trustees recognizes that COIs cannot be totally avoided when panel members are being chosen for certain guidelines or in certain settings; thus, the important issue is the management of COIs in a fair, judicious, transparent manner.

Evidence-based decision-making in infectious diseases epidemiology, prevention and control: matching research questions to study designs and quality appraisal tools.

BACKGROUND: The Project on a Framework for Rating Evidence in Public Health (PRECEPT) was initiated and is being funded by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) to define a methodology for evaluating and grading evidence and strength of recommendations in the field of public health, with emphasis on infectious disease epidemiology, prevention and control. One of the first steps was to review existing quality appraisal tools (QATs) for individual research studies of various designs relevant to this area, using a question-based approach. METHODS: Through team discussions and expert consultations, we identified 20 relevant types of public health questions, which were grouped into six domains, i.e. characteristics of the pathogen, burden of disease, diagnosis, risk factors, intervention, and implementation of intervention. Previously published systematic reviews were used and supplemented by expert consultation to identify suitable QATs. Finally, a matrix was constructed for matching questions to study designs suitable to address them and respective QATs. Key features of each of the included QATs were then analyzed, in particular in respect to its intended use, types of questions and answers, presence/absence of a quality score, and if a validation was performed. RESULTS: In total we identified 21 QATs and 26 study designs, and matched them. Four QATs were suitable for experimental quantitative study designs, eleven for observational quantitative studies, two for qualitative studies, three for economic studies, one for diagnostic test accuracy studies, and one for animal studies. Included QATs consisted of six to 28 items. Six of the QATs had a summary quality score. Fourteen QATs had undergone at least one validation procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this methodological study can be used as an inventory of potentially relevant questions, appropriate study designs and QATs for researchers and authorities engaged with evidence-based decision-making in infectious disease epidemiology, prevention and control.

Guidelines International Network: toward international standards for clinical practice guidelines.

Guideline development processes vary substantially, and many guidelines do not meet basic quality criteria. Standards for guideline development can help organizations ensure that recommendations are evidence-based and can help users identify high-quality guidelines. Such organizations as the U.S. Institute of Medicine and the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence have developed recommendations to define trustworthy guidelines within their locales. Many groups charged with guideline development find the lengthy list of standards developed by such organizations to be aspirational but infeasible to follow in entirety. Founded in 2002, the Guidelines International Network (G-I-N) is a network of guideline developers that includes 93 organizations and 89 individual members representing 46 countries. The G-I-N board of trustees recognized the importance of guideline development processes that are both rigorous and feasible even for modestly funded groups to implement and initiated an effort toward consensus about minimum standards for high-quality guidelines. In contrast to other existing standards for guideline development at national or local levels, the key components proposed by G-I-N will represent the consensus of an international, multidisciplinary group of active guideline developers. This article presents G-I-N's proposed set of key components for guideline development. These key components address panel composition, decision-making process, conflicts of interest, guideline objective, development methods, evidence review, basis of recommendations, ratings of evidence and recommendations, guideline review, updating processes, and funding. It is hoped that this article promotes discussion and eventual agreement on a set of international standards for guideline development.

Sensitivity to biases of case-control studies on medical procedures, particularly surgery and blood transfusion, and risk of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

BACKGROUND: Evidence of risk of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) associated with medical procedures, including surgery and blood transfusion, is limited by susceptibility to bias in epidemiological studies. METHODS: Sensitivity to bias was explored using a central-birth-cohort model using data from 18 case-control studies obtained after a review of 494 reports on medical procedures and risk of CJD, systematic for the period January 1, 1989 to December 31, 2011. RESULTS: The validity of the findings in these studies may have been undermined by: recall; control selection; exposure assessment in life-time periods of different duration, out of time-at-risk of effect, or asymmetry in case/control data; and confounding by concomitant blood transfusion at the time of surgery. For sporadic CJD (sCJD), a history of surgery or blood transfusion was associated with risk in some, but not all, recent studies at a ≥10 year lag time, when controls were longitudinally sampled. Space-time aggregation of surgical events was not seen. Surgery at early clinical onset might be overrepresented among cases. Neither surgical history nor blood transfusion unlabelled for donor status, dental treatments or endoscopic examinations were linked to variant CJD (vCJD). CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate the need for further research. Common challenges within these studies include access to and content of past medical/dental treatment records for diseases with long incubation periods.

From "getting things right" to "getting things right now": Developing COVID-19 guidance under time pressure and knowledge uncertainty.

BACKGROUND: At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, guidance was needed more than ever to direct frontline healthcare and national containment strategies. Rigorous guidance based on robust research was compromised by the emergence of the pandemic and the urgency of need for guidance. Rather than aiming to "get guidance right", guidance developers needed to "get guidance right now". AIM: To examine how guidance developers have responded to the need for credible guidance at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An exploratory mixed-methods study was conducted among guidance developers. A web-based survey and follow-up interviews were used to examine the most pertinent challenges in developing COVID-19 guidance, strategies used to address these, and perspectives on the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on future guidance development. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 46 guidance developers. Survey findings showed that conventional methods of guidance development were largely unsuited for COVID-19 guidance, with 80% (n = 37) of respondents resorting to other methods. From the survey and five follow-up interviews, two themes were identified to bolster the credibility of guidance in a setting of extreme uncertainty: (1) strengthening end-user involvement and (2) conjoining evidence review and recommendation formulation. 70% (n = 32) of survey respondents foresaw possible changes in future guidance production, most notably shortening development time, by reconsidering how to balance between rigour and speed for different types of questions. CONCLUSION: "Getting guidance right" and "getting guidance right now" are not opposites, rather uncertainties are always part of guidance development and require guidance developers to balance scientific robustness with usability, acceptability, adequacy and contingency. This crisis points to the need to acknowledge uncertainties of scientific evidence more explicitly and points to mechanisms to live with such uncertainty, thus extending guidance development methods and processes more widely.

Increased transmissibility of the alpha SARS-CoV-2 variant: evidence from contact tracing data in Oslo, January to February 2021.

BACKGROUND: Information about the contagiousness of new SARS-CoV-2 variants, including the alpha lineage, and how they spread in various locations is essential. Country-specific estimates are needed because local interventions influence transmissibility. METHODS: We analysed contact tracing data from Oslo municipality, reported from January through February 2021, when the alpha lineage became predominant in Norway and estimated the relative transmissibility of the alpha lineage with the use of Poisson regression. RESULTS: Within households, we found an increase in the secondary attack rate by 60% (95% CI 20-114%) among cases infected with the alpha lineage compared to other variants; including all close contacts, the relative increase in the secondary attack rate was 24% (95% CI -6%-43%). There was a significantly higher risk of infecting household members in index cases aged 40-59 years who were infected with the alpha lineage; we found no association between transmission and household size. Overall, including all close contacts, we found that the reproduction number among cases with the alpha lineage was increased by 24% (95% CI 0%-52%), corresponding to an absolute increase of 0.19, compared to the group of index cases infected with other variants. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that households are the primary locations for rapid transmission of the new lineage alpha.

Epidemiology of HPV Genotypes among HIV Positive Women in Kenya: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is a scarcity of data on the distribution of human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes in the HIV positive population and in invasive cervical cancer (ICC) in Kenya. This may be different from genotypes found in abnormal cytology. Yet, with the advent of preventive HPV vaccines that target HPV 16 and 18, and the nonavalent vaccine targeting 90% of all ICC cases, such HPV genotype distribution data are indispensable for predicting the impact of vaccination and HPV screening on prevention. Even with a successful vaccination program, vaccinated women will still require screening to detect those who will develop ICC from other High risk (HR) HPV genotypes not prevented by current vaccines. The aim of this review is to report on the prevalence of pHR/HR HPV types and multiple pHR/HR HPV genotypes in Kenya among HIV positive women with normal, abnormal cytology and ICC. METHODS: PUBMED, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and PROQUEST were searched for articles on HPV infection up to August 2nd 2016. Search terms were HIV, HPV, Cervical Cancer, Incidence or Prevalence, and Kenya. RESULTS: The 13 studies included yielded a total of 2116 HIV-infected women, of which 89 had ICC. The overall prevalence of pHR/HR HPV genotypes among HIV-infected women was 64% (95%CI: 50%-77%). There was a borderline significant difference in the prevalence of pHR/HR HPV genotypes between Female Sex workers (FSW) compared to non-FSW in women with both normal and abnormal cytology. Multiple pHR/HR HPV genotypes were highly prominent in both normal cytology/HSIL and ICC. The most prevalent HR HPV genotypes in women with abnormal cytology were HPV 16 with 26%, (95%CI: 23.0%-30.0%) followed by HPV 35 and 52, with 21% (95%CI: 18%-25%) and 18% (95%CI: 15%-21%), respectively. In women with ICC, the most prevalent HPV genotypes were HPV 16 (37%; 95%CI: 28%-47%) and HPV 18 (24%; 95%CI: 16%-33%). CONCLUSION: HPV 16/18 gains prominence as the severity of cervical disease increases, with HPV 16/18 accounting for 61% (95%CI: 50.0%-70.0%) of all ICC cases. A secondary prevention program will be necessary as this population harbors multiple pHR/HR HPV co-infections, which may not be covered by current vaccines. A triage based on FSW as an indicator may be warranted.

[How to improve continuing education and quality improvement in general practice?]. / Hvordan bedre kvalitet og videre- og etterutdanning i allmennpraksis?

BACKGROUND: Research has shown that many activities routinely used for continuing education and quality improvement in general practice, such as written information and lectures, have little or no effect on practice. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The Norwegian Institute of Public Health initiated a consensus-building process on how to improve continuing education and quality improvement in Norwegian general practice. RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION: The work of the consensus panel led to a report in which nine initiatives were proposed: development of a national plan, strengthening of the support available for group-based learning, academic outreach visits, practice based activities, personal learning plans, a national centre for quality improvement in general practice, improved use of referral and discharge information, multidisciplinary collaboration, and patient involvement.

Towards a framework for evaluating and grading evidence in public health.

The Project on a Framework for Rating Evidence in Public Health (PRECEPT) is an international collaboration of public health institutes and universities which has been funded by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) since 2012. Main objective is to define a framework for evaluating and grading evidence in the field of public health, with particular focus on infectious disease prevention and control. As part of the peer review process, an international expert meeting was held on 13-14 June 2013 in Berlin. Participants were members of the PRECEPT team and selected experts from national public health institutes, World Health Organization (WHO), and academic institutions. The aim of the meeting was to discuss the draft framework and its application to two examples from infectious disease prevention and control. This article introduces the draft PRECEPT framework and reports on the meeting, its structure, most relevant discussions and major conclusions.

[Dissemination of evidence-based information about PSA test and prostatic cancer to physicians]. / Formidling av kunnskapsbasert informasjon om PSA-test og prostatakreft til leger.

BACKGROUND: This paper describes the evaluation of an initiative to disseminate to general practitioners, urologists and patients in Norway evidence from systematic reviews on the clinical effectiveness of prostate cancer screening. Nine systematic reviews concluded that there is no evidence that early detection and treatment of prostate cancer reduces mortality or morbidity or improve patients' quality of life. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Evidence-based information about prostrate-specific antigen and prostate cancer, including patient information leaflets, was disseminated to 4100 general practitioners and specialists in urology in Norway in March 2001. One year later they were mailed a questionnaire aimed at evaluating how they had perceived and implemented this information. RESULTS: The results of the survey (response rate 41%) showed a marked contrast between general practitioners and urologists. 91% of general practitioners versus 61% of urologists agreed to the recommendation that prostrate-specific antigen tests should not be taken by healthy men. 87% of general practitioners but only 33% of urologists followed up the recommendations in their practice. INTERPRETATION: Dissemination of evidence-based information about prostrate-specific antigen and prostate cancer was appreciated by general practitioners, had the power to convince and contributed to enhanced knowledge of a controversial issue, thereby increasing their confidence in their clinical decision making.