评估公共卫生评估和应对框架:巴西南巴西大德州控制距离模式下的SARS-CoV-2传播

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Health Security Pub Date : 2025-01-15 DOI:10.1089/hs.2023.0191
Ricardo Rohweder, Lavinia Schuler-Faccini, Gonçalo Ferraz
{"title":"评估公共卫生评估和应对框架:巴西南巴西大德州控制距离模式下的SARS-CoV-2传播","authors":"Ricardo Rohweder, Lavinia Schuler-Faccini, Gonçalo Ferraz","doi":"10.1089/hs.2023.0191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In early 2020, to halt the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the state government of Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil established a public health assessment and response framework known as a \"controlled distancing model.\" Using this framework, the government divided the state into 21 regions and evaluated them against a composite index of disease transmission and health service capacity. Regions were assessed using a color-coded scale of flags that was updated on a weekly basis and used to guide the adoption of nonpharmaceutical interventions. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the extent to which the controlled distancing model accurately assessed transmission and the effectiveness of its responses throughout 2020. We estimated the weekly effective reproduction number (<i>R<sub>t</sub></i>) of SARS-CoV-2 for each region using a renewal equation-based statistical model of notified COVID-19 deaths. Using <i>R<sub>t</sub></i> estimates, we explored whether flag colors assigned by the controlled distancing model either reflected or affected SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Results showed that flag assignments did reflect variations in <i>R<sub>t</sub></i> to a limited extent, but we found no evidence that they affected <i>R<sub>t</sub></i> in the short term. Medium-term effects were apparent in only 4 regions after 8 or more weeks of red flag assignment. Analysis of Google movement metrics showed no evidence that people moved differently under different flags. The dissociation between flag colors and the propagation of SARS-CoV-2 does not call into question the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical interventions. Our results show, however, that decisions made under the controlled distancing model framework were ineffective both at influencing the movement of people and halting the spread of the virus.</p>","PeriodicalId":12955,"journal":{"name":"Health Security","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating a Public Health Assessment and Response Framework: SARS-CoV-2 Spread Under the Controlled Distancing Model of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.\",\"authors\":\"Ricardo Rohweder, Lavinia Schuler-Faccini, Gonçalo Ferraz\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/hs.2023.0191\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In early 2020, to halt the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the state government of Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil established a public health assessment and response framework known as a \\\"controlled distancing model.\\\" Using this framework, the government divided the state into 21 regions and evaluated them against a composite index of disease transmission and health service capacity. Regions were assessed using a color-coded scale of flags that was updated on a weekly basis and used to guide the adoption of nonpharmaceutical interventions. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the extent to which the controlled distancing model accurately assessed transmission and the effectiveness of its responses throughout 2020. We estimated the weekly effective reproduction number (<i>R<sub>t</sub></i>) of SARS-CoV-2 for each region using a renewal equation-based statistical model of notified COVID-19 deaths. Using <i>R<sub>t</sub></i> estimates, we explored whether flag colors assigned by the controlled distancing model either reflected or affected SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Results showed that flag assignments did reflect variations in <i>R<sub>t</sub></i> to a limited extent, but we found no evidence that they affected <i>R<sub>t</sub></i> in the short term. Medium-term effects were apparent in only 4 regions after 8 or more weeks of red flag assignment. Analysis of Google movement metrics showed no evidence that people moved differently under different flags. The dissociation between flag colors and the propagation of SARS-CoV-2 does not call into question the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical interventions. Our results show, however, that decisions made under the controlled distancing model framework were ineffective both at influencing the movement of people and halting the spread of the virus.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12955,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Security\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Security\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/hs.2023.0191\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Security","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/hs.2023.0191","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2020年初,为了阻止SARS-CoV-2的传播,巴西南巴西格兰德州政府建立了一个被称为“控制距离模型”的公共卫生评估和应对框架。利用这一框架,政府将该州划分为21个地区,并根据疾病传播和卫生服务能力的综合指数对这些地区进行评估。使用每周更新的彩色标记尺度对区域进行评估,并用于指导采用非药物干预措施。在本研究中,我们旨在评估控制距离模型在2020年准确评估传播的程度及其应对措施的有效性。我们使用基于更新方程的COVID-19通报死亡统计模型估计了每个地区每周SARS-CoV-2的有效繁殖数(Rt)。使用Rt估计,我们探讨了由控制距离模型分配的国旗颜色是否反映或影响了SARS-CoV-2的传播。结果表明,标记赋值确实在一定程度上反映了Rt的变化,但我们没有发现它们在短期内影响Rt的证据。在8周或更长时间的红旗分配后,只有4个地区的中期效果明显。对谷歌运动指标的分析显示,没有证据表明人们在不同的旗帜下运动不同。国旗颜色与SARS-CoV-2传播之间的分离并不会质疑非药物干预措施的有效性。然而,我们的研究结果表明,在控制距离模型框架下做出的决定在影响人员流动和阻止病毒传播方面都是无效的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evaluating a Public Health Assessment and Response Framework: SARS-CoV-2 Spread Under the Controlled Distancing Model of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.

In early 2020, to halt the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the state government of Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil established a public health assessment and response framework known as a "controlled distancing model." Using this framework, the government divided the state into 21 regions and evaluated them against a composite index of disease transmission and health service capacity. Regions were assessed using a color-coded scale of flags that was updated on a weekly basis and used to guide the adoption of nonpharmaceutical interventions. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the extent to which the controlled distancing model accurately assessed transmission and the effectiveness of its responses throughout 2020. We estimated the weekly effective reproduction number (Rt) of SARS-CoV-2 for each region using a renewal equation-based statistical model of notified COVID-19 deaths. Using Rt estimates, we explored whether flag colors assigned by the controlled distancing model either reflected or affected SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Results showed that flag assignments did reflect variations in Rt to a limited extent, but we found no evidence that they affected Rt in the short term. Medium-term effects were apparent in only 4 regions after 8 or more weeks of red flag assignment. Analysis of Google movement metrics showed no evidence that people moved differently under different flags. The dissociation between flag colors and the propagation of SARS-CoV-2 does not call into question the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical interventions. Our results show, however, that decisions made under the controlled distancing model framework were ineffective both at influencing the movement of people and halting the spread of the virus.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Security
Health Security PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
6.10%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: Health Security is a peer-reviewed journal providing research and essential guidance for the protection of people’s health before and after epidemics or disasters and for ensuring that communities are resilient to major challenges. The Journal explores the issues posed by disease outbreaks and epidemics; natural disasters; biological, chemical, and nuclear accidents or deliberate threats; foodborne outbreaks; and other health emergencies. It offers important insight into how to develop the systems needed to meet these challenges. Taking an interdisciplinary approach, Health Security covers research, innovations, methods, challenges, and ethical and legal dilemmas facing scientific, military, and health organizations. The Journal is a key resource for practitioners in these fields, policymakers, scientific experts, and government officials.
期刊最新文献
Hospital Boarding Creates Critical Shortcomings in Disaster Preparedness. Building a Fast Response Capability for Emerging Infectious Diseases Within the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. Evaluating a Public Health Assessment and Response Framework: SARS-CoV-2 Spread Under the Controlled Distancing Model of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. The Need for a New Approach to MCI Readiness in the Era of Emergency Department and Hospital Crowding. Advancing Systematic Change in the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS): Early Implementation of the US Department of Defense NDMS Pilot Program.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1