Objective: This systematic review investigates the effectiveness of different communication strategies to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake and willingness. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), following recommendations from the Cochrane Handbook and reporting according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. Data sources: We searched the following databases until 27 July 2022: Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection and WHO COVID-19 Global literature. Eligibility criteria for study selection: We included RCTs investigating, any population, communication-based interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake and comparing these with no intervention (with or without placebo), another communication strategy or another type of intervention. Methods: Screening, data extraction and bias assessment, using the Cochrane ROB 1.0 tool, were conducted by two authors independently. We performed meta-analyses if studies were homogeneous using the Review Manager (RevMan 5) software, synthesised the remaining results narratively and assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Results: We identified 49 studies reporting on the predefined four categories of communication interventions. Evidence from our meta-analyses shows that COVID-19 vaccine uptake may increase when education and information strategies are applied (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.28; high-certainty evidence) or social norms are communicated (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.33; high-certainty evidence) compared with no intervention. The different communication strategies mostly have little to no impact on vaccine intention; however, there may be a slight increase in vaccine confidence when gain framing is applied compared with no intervention. Conclusion: Overall, we found that education and information-based interventions or social norm-framing strategies are most effective compared with no intervention given. Our findings show that some of the investigated communication strategies might influence policy decision-making, and our results could be useful for future pandemics as well. Prospero registration number: PROSPERO (CRD42021296618).

Objective: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused a range of mental health problems, particularly self-harm. Lockdowns are the usual methods of responding to these public health emergencies. However, the effect of the COVID-19 lockdown on self-harm remains poorly characterized. This study aimed to investigate the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the incidence of self-harm. The findings may inform future policy development and strategies for managing pandemic-related mental health challenges. Methods: A meta-analysis was conducted using several database searches: APA PsycINFO, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wan Fang. Published studies with data on the incidence of self-harm during visits to medical institutions, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, were included. The pooled risk ratio (RR) value of self-harm incidence variation before and during the COVID-19 lockdown period, expressed as the comparison of clinical institution visits before and during the pandemic, was calculated. Results: Fifteen retrospective cohort studies with observational designs involving 253,600 participants were included. The pooled RR value of self-harm incidence variation was 1.386 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.205-1.595, I2 = 58.9%, p = 0.002). The subgroup analysis showed that "emergency department type" (p = 0.004) and "mean age of the sample" were the sources of the RR values' heterogeneity (p = 0.026). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic was a risk factor for self-harm. Therefore, special attention should be paid to individuals visiting the emergency department and the middle-aged and elderly populations. The prospero registration: This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023373026), https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42023373026.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has instigated the development of telemedicine-mediated provision of medications for opioid use disorder such as buprenorphine and methadone, referred to as TMOUD in this study. As services start to return to pre-pandemic norms, there is a debate around the role of TMOUD as addition to or replacement of the conventional cascade of care for people with opioid use disorder (PWOUD). This scoping review is designed to characterize existing TMOUD services and provide insights to enable a more nuanced discussion on the role of telemedicine in the care of PWOUD. METHODS: The literature search was conducted in OVID Medline, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, from inception up to and including April 2023, using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. The review considered any study design that detailed sufficient descriptive information on a given TMOUD service. A data extraction form was developed to collect and categorize a range of descriptive characteristics of each discrete TMOUD model identified from the obtained articles. RESULTS: A total of 45 articles met the inclusion criteria, and from this, 40 discrete TMOUD services were identified. In total, 33 services were US-based, three from Canada, and one each from India, Ireland, the UK, and Norway. Through a detailed analysis of TMOUD service characteristics, four models of care were identified. These were TMOUD to facilitate inclusion health, to facilitate transitions in care, to meet complex healthcare needs, and to maintain opioid use disorder (OUD) service resilience. CONCLUSIONS: Characterizing TMOUD according to its functional benefits to PWOUD and OUD services will help support evidence-based policy and practice. Additionally, particular attention is given to how digital exclusion of PWOUD can be mitigated against.

The outbreak of the COVID-19 has seriously affected the whole society, and vaccines were the most effective means to contain the epidemic. This paper aims to determine the top 100 articles cited most frequently in COVID-19 vaccines and to analyze the research status and hot spots in this field through bibliometrics, to provide a reference for future research. We conducted a comprehensive search of the Web of Science Core Collection database on November 29, 2023, and identified the top 100 articles by ranking them from highest to lowest citation frequency. In addition, we analyzed the year of publication, citation, author, country, institution, journal, and keywords with Microsoft Excel 2019 and VOSviewer 1.6.18. Research focused on vaccine immunogenicity and safety, vaccine hesitancy, and vaccination intention.

Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on the health of Indigenous Peoples in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA, as reflected in the growing literature. However, Indigenous Peoples are often homogenised, with key differences often overlooked, failing to capture the complexity of issues and may lead to suboptimal public health policy-making. The objective of this review was to assess the extent to which the heterogeneity of the Indigenous Peoples in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA has been reflected in COVID-19 research. Design: This study took the form of a scoping review. Data sources: Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched for studies investigating COVID-19 pandemic outcomes among Indigenous Peoples in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA. The search dates included January 2019 to January 2024. Eligibility criteria: All citations yielded by this search were subjected to title and abstract screening, full-text review and data extraction. We included original, peer-reviewed research investigating COVID-19-related outcomes among Indigenous Peoples in Canada, Australia, New Zealand or the USA. Data extraction and synthesis: Data extraction was conducted as an iterative process, reaching consensus between two of the study authors. All included studies were analysed through a combination of quantitative descriptive summary and qualitative thematic analysis. Results: Of the 9795 citations found by the initial search, 428 citations were deemed eligible for inclusion. Of these citations: 72.9% compared Indigenous participants to non-Indigenous participants; 10.0% aggregated Indigenous and non-white participants; and 17.1% provided findings for Indigenous participants exclusively. Conclusions: By overlooking the heterogeneity that exists among Indigenous Peoples in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA, researchers and policy-makers run the risk of masking inequities and the unique needs of groups of Indigenous Peoples. This may lead to inefficient policy recommendations and unintentionally perpetuate health disparities during public health crises.

Problem and background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was substantial reconfiguration of maternity care services, affecting both users and healthcare providers (HCPs), in the United Kingdom (UK) and globally. Aim: To further our understanding of the impact of maternity service reconfigurations in the UK, from the perspective of maternity HCPs. Methods: Scopus, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane COVID Study Register were searched for relevant studies reporting qualitative data from the UK, published in English between 01 June 2021 and 30 September 2023. Qualitative data on HCPs' experiences of maternity care reconfiguration during the pandemic were extracted from 15 studies. Data were subjected to thematic synthesis according to key service reconfigurations. Results: Nine themes were identified: Care-seeking and Care Experience: Changes to existing care, Limitations placed on the partner, Mental health and lack of support networks, and Barriers to successful implementation of reconfiguration strategies; Virtual Care: Impact on quality of care, Increased convenience and flexibility, and Digital exclusion; and Ethical Future of Maternity Care Services: Optimising patient care, and Service users and staff as the driving force for change. No studies reported on the concepts of Self-monitoring or COVID-19 vaccination. Discussion and conclusion: The review findings highlight HCPs' views of the need for greater inclusion of partners, choice of virtual or in-person care for women and birthing people; and a need for co-designed services for future policy-making.

Introduction: The global community, during the COVID-19 pandemic, faced a vast amount of information and risks due to low levels of health literacy. Governments responded differently to the pandemic crisis based on formulated policies and their societal conditions. The present research focuses on analyzing information and health literacy policies in pandemics to present a model and identify and prioritize factors affecting the formation and implementation of the mentioned policies. Methods: This qualitative research was conducted using semi-structured interviews with key informants. Extracted codes were designed based on expert opinions, and an initial conceptual framework was developed according to the policy triangle (content, context, process, and actors). Finally, the identified issues and the conceptual framework were validated using the Delphi-quantitative method. Results: The results indicate that the content of information and health literacy policies focuses on goal-setting, planning, law formulation, and amendments and updates. The process of information and health literacy policies in pandemics was categorized into managerial, educational, dissemination, sharing, evaluation, and monitoring processes. Economic, political, social, and cultural aspects were identified as influential context, and multiple actors were identified as policymakers and facilitators of information and health literacy policies in pandemics. Conclusion: The developed model can be a suitable and useful tool for increasing the awareness of health managers and policymakers about the strengths and weaknesses of past policies regarding information and health literacy policies in pandemics. It also provides a suitable perspective for policymaking and identifying factors influencing the implementation of enacted policies.

BackgroundMathematical models and advanced analytics play an important role in policy decision making and mobilizing action. The Imperial College Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Response Team (ICCRT) provided continuous, timely and robust epidemiological analyses to inform the policy responses of governments and public health agencies around the world. This study aims to quantify the policy impact of ICCRT outputs, and understand which evidence was considered policy-relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe collated all outputs published by the ICCRT between 01-01-2020 and 24-02-2022 and conducted inductive thematic analysis. A systematic search of the Overton database identified policy document references, as an indicator of policy impact.ResultsWe identified 620 outputs including preprints (16%), reports (29%), journal articles (37%) and news items (18%). More than half (56%) of all reports and preprints were subsequently peer-reviewed and published as a journal article after 202 days on average. Reports and preprints were crucial during the COVID-19 pandemic to the timely distribution of important research findings. One-fifth of ICCRT outputs (21%) were available to or considered by United Kingdom government meetings. Policy documents from 41 countries in 26 different languages referenced 43% of ICCRT outputs, with a mean time between publication and reference in the policy document of 256 days. We analysed a total of 1746 policy document references. Two-thirds (61%) of journal articles, 39% of preprints, 31% of reports and 16% of news items were referenced in one or more policy documents (these 217 outputs had a mean of 8 policy document references per output). The most frequent themes of the evidence produced by the ICCRT reflected the evidence-need for policy decision making, and evolved accordingly from the pre-vaccination phase [severity, healthcare demand and capacity, and non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs)] to the vaccination phase of the epidemic (variants and genomics).ConclusionThe work produced by the ICCRT affected global and domestic policy during the COVID-19 pandemic. The focus of evidence produced by the ICCRT corresponded with changing policy needs over time. The policy impact from ICCRT news items highlights the effectiveness of this unique communication strategy in addition to traditional research outputs, ensuring research informs policy decisions more effectively.

COVID-19 is not only associated with substantial acute liver and kidney injuries, but also with an elevated risk of post-acute sequelae involving the kidney and liver system. We aimed to investigate whether COVID-19 exposure increases the long-term risk of kidney and liver disease, and what are the magnitudes of these associations. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, , and the Living Overview of the Evidence COVID-19 Repository for cohort studies estimating the association between COVID-19 and kidney and liver outcomes. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to combine the results of the included studies. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Fifteen cohort studies with more than 32 million participants were included in the systematic review COVID-19 was associated with a 35% greater risk of kidney diseases (10 more per 1000 persons; low certainty evidence) and 54% greater risk of liver disease (3 more per 1000 persons; low certainty evidence). The absolute increases due to COVID-19 for acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, and liver test abnormality were 3, 8, and 3 per 1000 persons, respectively. Subgroup analyses found no differences between different type of kidney and liver diseases. The findings provide further evidence for the association between COVID-19 and incident kidney and liver conditions. The absolute magnitude of the effect of COVID-19 on kidney and liver outcomes was, however, relatively small.

Objectives: The co-occurring flood and coronavirus disease (COVID-19) increase the consequences for health and life. This study examined the strategies to manage the health consequences of the co-occurring flood and COVID-19, with a specific focus on these 2 challenges. Methods: This review included all the studies published in peer-reviewed journals between January 1980 and June 2021. Several electronic databases were searched, including Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tools (MMT), version 2018, assessed the articles retrieved through a comprehensive and systematic literature search. Descriptive and thematic analyses were carried out to derive strategies for managing the health consequences of the simultaneous flood and COVID-19. Results: Among 4271 identified articles, 10 were eligible for inclusion. In total, 199 strategies were identified in this review for managing the multi-hazard health consequences of flooding and COVID-19, which were classified into 9 categories and 25 subcategories. The categories included policy making and decision making, coordination, risk communication, logistics, planning, preparedness measures, response measures, social and humanitarian support, and actions of local communities and non-governmental organizations. Conclusions: Managing a multi-hazard and reducing its health consequences requires various actions. Flood management must be needed, and flood-affected people and their health should be protected.

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic posed a detrimental impact on the conduct of non-COVID-19 related clinical trials, raising concerns about the completeness of these studies and waste of resources. While several measures and strategies have been suggested to address these issues, a thorough and timely summarisation is still lacking. Therefore, our aim is to conduct a scoping review to summarise the negative effects of COVID-19 on non-COVID-19 clinical trials, outline the effective measures for mitigating these impacts, and provide insights for future pandemics.Methods and analysisThis scoping review will be conducted in line with the Joanna Briggs Institute's scoping review methodological framework, and the results will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Relevant articles will be searched in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library from 1 December 2019 to 1 July 2023. We will also screen the reference lists of the included studies manually to identify more potentially relevant articles. Articles focusing on the adverse impacts of COVID-19 on non-COVID-19 clinical trials and effective measures for mitigating them will be included. Two investigators will perform study selection and data extraction independently. A narrative summary as well as a descriptive analysis of the basic characteristics and key results of the included studies will be performed.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required, as this scoping review will be completed based only on published literature. The findings of this scoping review will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and/or conference presentations.

Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has been extensively employed for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, there is demand for discovering more SARS-CoV-2 Mpro inhibitors with diverse scaffolds to optimize anti-SARS-CoV-2 lead compounds. In this study, comprehensive in silico and in vitro assays were utilized to determine the potential inhibitors from TCM compounds against SARS-CoV-2 Mpro, which is an important therapeutic target for SARS-CoV-2. The ensemble docking analysis of 18263 TCM compounds against 15 SARS-CoV-2 Mpro conformations identified 19 TCM compounds as promising candidates. Further in vitro testing validated three compounds as inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 Mpro and showed IC50 values of 4.64 ± 0.11, 7.56 ± 0.78, and 11.16 ± 0.26 μM, with EC50 values of 12.25 ± 1.68, 15.58 ± 0.77, and 29.32 ± 1.25 μM, respectively. Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations indicated that the three complexes remained stable over the last 100 ns of production run. An analysis of the binding mode revealed that the active compounds occupy different subsites (S1, S2, S3, and S4) of the active site of SARS-CoV-2 Mpro via specific poses through noncovalent interactions with key amino acids (e.g., HIS 41, ASN 142, GLY 143, MET 165, GLU 166, or GLN 189). Overall, this study provides evidence indicating that the three natural products obtained from TCM could be further used for anti-COVID-19 research, justifying the investigation of Chinese herbal medicinal ingredients as bioactive constituents for therapeutic targets.

BACKGROUND: Very few studies have investigated telepharmacy (TP) in critical care. This scoping review undertook this task. METHODS: We searched the following five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, WoS, Scopus, CINAHL). Data were extracted from the articles and mapped out. Arksey and O'Malley's 6-step framework was used, and data synthesis identified activities, benefits, economic impact, challenges, and knowledge gaps of TP in critical care. RESULTS: Out of 77 reports retrieved, 14 were included in the review as per inclusion criteria. Eight studies (57%) were published since 2020, and 9 (64%) were from the United States. Tele-ICU was in place before TP implementation in six studies (43%). TP used a range of synchronous/asynchronous communications. Studies reported wide assortment of reactive/scheduled TP activities. Patient outcomes were evaluated in one study of sedation-related TP interventions but they were not different despite improved compliance with sedation protocol. Most common clinical interventions/drugs included glycemic, electrolyte, and antimicrobial therapy management and antithrombotic agents among others. Acceptance of TP interventions was 75% or more in four studies and 51-55% in two studies. Benefits of TP included resolved drug-related problems, increased compliance with guidelines, maintained interactions with other health care providers, and patient safety among others. Three studies (21%) reported cost avoidance with TP interventions. Challenges included communication, intervention documentation, tracking implementation of recommendations, and monetary/financial and legislative/regulatory issues. Knowledge gaps comprised lack of frameworks for implementation/evaluation of TP in critical care, methodological aspects, lack of patient-specific outcomes, as well as institution/health-system aspects, and documentation systems, cost, legislative, and sustainability issues. CONCLUSIONS: TP in critical care is underpublished, and comprehensive frameworks for its implementation and evaluation remain lacking. Assessments are needed to evaluate the effect of TP in critical care on patient-specific outcomes, its economic and legal dimensions, methods to sustain it, as well as the role of documentation systems, collaboration models, and institutional characteristics.

Intensive care unit (ICU) strain, characterized by a discrepancy between perceived or actual intensive care resources and demand, significantly impacts patient outcomes and healthcare worker well-being. The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic exacerbated ICU strain, leading to increased mortality and extended hospital stays, affecting both critically ill patients with and without COVID-19. A systematic review identified 16 leading and lagging indicators of ICU capacity strain, including queuing, premature and after-hours ICU discharge, use of temporary space, length of stay, burnout, staffing and nurse-to-patient ratio, ICU census, acuity and turnover, standardized mortality ratio, readmissions, availability of critical supplies, ventilator use, and surgery cancellation. However, variability in operational definitions and limited evidence regarding the reliability, validity, usability, and feasibility limit the value of single indicators for informed strategic planning and policy guidance. Regional and national policies and programs are essential to enhance real-time monitoring for effective management of critical care resources, and they mitigate the impact of ICU strain, facilitating complex interhospital transfers to reduce strain and ensuring comprehensive strategies for enhancing ICU resilience. Proactive regional cooperation is advocated for policy formulation, knowledge exchange, and resource allocation to anticipate and mitigate ICU strain, ensuring equitable healthcare access during global health crises. The policy implications for future preparedness emphasize the importance of evidence-based triage and adaptable patient management strategies alongside ethical considerations in resource allocation and the role of behavioral economic insights in optimizing resource utilization and collaborative healthcare practices. This multifaceted approach for addressing ICU strain comprehensively and effectively during a pandemic would promote health equity and enhance healthcare system resilience under both routine operations and crisis conditions.

Background: The clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) treatment for COVID-19 remain controversial. This study aimed to map the current status and gaps of available evidence, and conduct a meta-analysis to further investigate the benefit of IVIg in COVID-19 patients. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs), primary studies with control groups, reporting on the use of IVIg in patients with COVID-19. A random-effects meta-analysis with subgroup analyses regarding study design and patient disease severity was performed. Our outcomes of interest determined by the evidence mapping, were mortality, length of hospitalization (days), length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (days), number of patients requiring mechanical ventilation, and adverse events. Results: We included 34 studies (12 SR/MAs, 8 prospective and 14 retrospective studies). A total of 5571 hospitalized patients were involved in 22 primary studies. Random-effects meta-analyses of very low to moderate evidence showed that there was little or no difference between IVIg and standard care or placebo in reducing mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.91; 95% CI 0.78-1.06; risk difference [RD] 3.3% fewer), length of hospital (mean difference [MD] 0.37; 95% CI - 2.56, 3.31) and ICU (MD 0.36; 95% CI - 0.81, 1.53) stays, mechanical ventilation use (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.68-1.24; RD 2.8% fewer), and adverse events (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.84-1.14; RD 0.5% fewer) of patients with COVID-19. Sensitivity analysis using a fixed-effects model indicated that IVIg may reduce mortality (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.60-0.97), and increase length of hospital stay (MD 0.68; 95% CI 0.09-1.28). Conclusion: Very low to moderate certainty of evidence indicated IVIg may not improve the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Given the discrepancy between the random- and fixed-effects model results, further large-scale and well-designed RCTs are warranted

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted pre-existing weaknesses in health and care systems and services and shortages of health and care workers (HCWs). As a result, policymakers needed to adopt measures to improve the health and care workforce (HCWF) capacity. This review aims to identify countries' range of policies and management interventions implemented to improve HCWs' capacity to address the COVID-19 pandemic response, synthesize their evidence on effectiveness, and identify gaps in the evidence. METHODS: The literature was searched in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, LILACS-BVS, WHO's COVID-19 Research Database and the ILO, OECD and HSRM websites for literature and documents published between January 2020 and March 2022. Eligibility criteria were HCWs as participants and policy and management interventions aiming to improve HCWF capacity to address the COVID-19 pandemic response. Risk of bias was assessed with Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tools (CAT) and certainty of the evidence in presented outcomes with GRADE. RESULTS: The searches retrieved 3378 documents. A total of 69 were included, but only 8 presented outcomes of interventions implemented. Most of the selected documents described at least one intervention implemented by countries at the organizational environment level to increase the flexibility and capacity of the HCWF to respond to the pandemic, followed by interventions to attract and retain HCWs in safe and decent working environments. There was a lack of studies addressing social protection, human resources for health information systems, and regarding the role of community health workers and other community-based providers. Regarding the risk of bias, most of documents were rated as medium or high quality (JBI's CAT), while the evidence presented for the outcomes of interventions was classified as mostly low-certainty evidence (GRADE). CONCLUSIONS: Countries have implemented various interventions, some innovative, in response to the pandemic, and others had their processes started earlier and accelerated by the pandemic. The evidence regarding the impact and efficacy of the strategies used by countries during the pandemic still requires further research.

The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the effects of the COVID-19 lockdown on the psychological well-being of caregivers of people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment (PwD/MCI). Electronic databases were searched from inception to August 2022 for observational studies investigating the COVID-19 lockdown and psychological well-being of caregivers of PwD/MCI. Summary estimates of standardized mean differences (SMD) in psychological well-being scores pre- versus during COVID-19 were calculated using a random-effects model. Fifteen studies including 1702 caregivers (65.7% female, mean age 60.40 ± 12.9 years) with PwD/MCI were evaluated. Five studies found no change in psychological well-being parameters, including depression, anxiety, distress, caregiver burden, and quality of life. Ten studies found a worsening in at least one parameter: depression (six studies, n = 1368; SMD = 0.40; 95%CI: 0.09-0.71; p = 0.01, I(2) = 86.8%), anxiety (seven studies, n = 1569; SMD = 1.35; 95%CI: 0.05-2.65; I(2) = 99.2%), caregiver distress (six studies, n = 1320, SMD = 3.190; 95%CI: 1.42-4.95; p < 0.0001; I(2) = 99.4%), and caregiver burden (four studies, n = 852, SMD = 0.34; 95%CI: 0.13-0.56; p = 0.001; I(2) = 54.1%) (p < 0.05). There was an increase in depression, anxiety, caregiver burden, and distress in caregivers of PwD/MCI during the lockdown in the COVID pandemic. This could have longer term consequences, and it is essential that caregivers' psychological well-being is assessed and supported, to benefit both themselves and those for whom they care.

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the scale of global unpreparedness to deal with the fast-arising needs of global health threats. This problem was coupled with a crisis of governance and presented in the context of globally hitting climate crisis and disasters. Although such a pandemic was predictable due to the known effects of human intervention on the surrounding environment and its devastating secondary effects, such as climate change and increased zoonoses, most countries were unprepared to deal with the scale and scope of the pandemic. In this context, such as that of the climate crisis, the Global North and Global South faced several common challenges, including, first and foremost, the scarcity of resources required for health, policy, wellbeing and socioeconomic wellness. In this paper, we review the most recent evidence available in the literature related to pandemic preparedness and governance, focusing on principles and practices used during the COVID-19 pandemic, and we place it in the context of a European Parliament Interest Group meeting (this event took place on 21 March 2023 during the "European Health Tech Summit") to ground it within ongoing discussions and narratives of policy and praxis. The review identified key practices and principles required to better face future health threats and emergencies. Beyond health practices relying on technology and innovation, it is useful to mention the importance of contextualising responses and linking them to clear goals, improving the agreement between science and policymaking, thus building trust and enabling transparent communication with the general public based on clear ethical frameworks.

Background Molnupiravir has been considered a promising candidate for COVID-19. Its efficacy and safety in non-severe COVID-19 patients and the differences between patients with different risk factors need further evaluation. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that allocated adult patients with non-severe COVID-19 to molnupiravir or a control. We used random-effects models, and conducted subgroup analyses and meta-regression for COVID-19 patients with high-risk factors. The GRADE approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. Results Fourteen trials with 34 570 patients were included. Moderate- to low-certainty evidence showed that molnupiravir was associated with a reduction in the risk of hospitalization (relative risk [RR] = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.47-0.85), risk of mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.19-0.72) and time to symptom resolution (mean differences [MD] = -2.91 days, 95% CI: -3.66 to -2.16). However, no significant differences were found in adverse events, all-cause mortality, rate of and time to viral clearance, or duration of hospitalization. For the rate of viral clearance, subgroup effects were found between trials with low and high risk of bias (P = 0.001) and between trials with male or female majority (P < 0.001). For admission to hospital, subgroup effects were also found between trials with & GE;50% and <50% of the participants being female (P = 0.04). Meta-regression showed a significant association between higher trial mean age and elevated risk of hospitalization (P = 0.011), and female majority and elevated risk of hospitalization (P = 0.011). Conclusions Molnupiravir was found to be effective in non-severe COVID-19, but the efficacy varied with age and sex.