Mass gatherings play an important role in society, but since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, they have generally been restricted in order to mitigate transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The aim of this study was to summarise the evidence regarding the effectiveness of public health measures at preventing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 at mass gatherings, and hence inform guidance on the organisation of these events. A rapid review was undertaken in Cochrane, Embase (OVID), Medline (OVID), Google, Web of Science and Europe PMC from 1 January 2020 to 3 June 2021. Of the identified 1,624 citations, 14 articles referring to 11 unique studies were included. This rapid review found evidence from 11 studies (involving approximately 30,482 participants) that implementing a range of measures may reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission at mass gatherings; however, it is unlikely that this risk can be eliminated entirely. All studies adopted a layered mitigation approach involving multiple measures, which may be more effective than relying on any single measure. The number and intensity of measures implemented varied across studies, with most implementing resource intense measures. Importantly, all included studies were only of 'fair' to 'poor' quality. In conclusion, there is currently limited evidence on the effectiveness of measures to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission at mass gatherings. As mass gatherings recommence, continued adoption of known mitigation measures is required to limit the risk of transmission, as well as ongoing research and surveillance to monitor the potential impact of these events on the wider population and healthcare system.

​Summary This rapid review aimed to identify measures available to support those in isolation or quarantine during the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid‐19) pandemic, and determine their effectiveness in improving adherence to these recommendations and or reducing transmission. The rapid review consisted of two elements, the first was a review of guidance published by national and international agencies relating to measures to support those in isolation (due to case status) or quarantine (due to close contact status) during the Covid‐19 pandemic. Five categories of support measures were identified in the international guidance, they were: Psychological, addiction and safety supports, Essential supplies, Financial aid, Information provision and Enforcement. The second element was a rapid literature review of the effectiveness of measures used to support individuals in isolation or quarantine during any pandemic or epidemic setting, due to respiratory pathogens. A systematic search of published peer‐reviewed articles and nonpeer‐reviewed pre‐prints was undertaken from 1 January 2000 to 26 January 2021. Two Australian publications met the inclusion criteria, both based on data from a survey undertaken during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. The first reported that 55% of households were fully compliant with quarantine recommendations, and that there was increased compliance reported in households that understood what they were meant to do compared with those who reported that they did not (odds ratio [OR]: 2.27, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.35–3.80). The second reported that access to paid sick and or carer's leave did not predict compliance with quarantine recommendations (OR: 2.07, 95% CI: 0.82–5.23). Neither reported on reduction in transmission.

Introduction : Clinical guideline development often involves a rigorous synthesis of evidence involving multidisciplinary stakeholders with different priorities and knowledge of evidence synthesis; this makes communicating findings complex. Summary formats are typically used to communicate the results of evidence syntheses, however, there is little consensus on which formats are most effective and acceptable for different stakeholders. Methods This mixed-methods systematic review (MMSR) aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability (e.g., usability preferences, and attitudes and preferences towards) of evidence synthesis summary formats for GDG members. We followed the PRISMA 2020 guideline and Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis for MMSRs. We searched six databases (inception to April 20, 2021) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), RCTs with a qualitative component, and qualitative studies. Screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal was performed in duplicate. Qualitative findings were synthesised using meta-aggregation and quantitative findings are described narratively. Results We identified 17,240 citations and screened 54 full-text articles, resulting in 22 eligible articles (20 unique studies): 4 articles reported the results of 5 RCTs, one of which also had a qualitative component. The other 18 articles discussed the results of 16 qualitative studies. Therefore we had 5 trials and 17 qualitative studies to extract data from. Studies were geographically heterogeneous and included a variety of stakeholders and summary formats. All 5 RCTs assessed knowledge or understanding with 3 reporting improvement with newer formats. The qualitative analysis identified 6 themes: ‘presenting information’, ‘tailoring content for end users’, ‘trust in synthesis producers’, ‘knowledge requirements’, ‘quality of included studies’, and ‘properly contextualising findings’. Across these themes, the synthesis resulted in 130 recommendations for practice. Nine recommendations were supported by both quantitative and qualitative evidence and 121 by only qualitative. A majority focused on how to present information (n = 68) and tailor content for different end users (n = 24). Conclusions This MMSR provides guidance on how to improve evidence summary structure and layout. This can be used by synthesis producers to better communicate to GDGs. Study findings will inform the co-creation of evidence summary format prototypes based on GDG member’s needs. Word Count: 345 Registration: The protocol for this project was previously published and the project was pre-registered on Open Science Framework. [1, 2]

Introduction: Evidence syntheses, often in the form of systematic reviews, are essential for clinical guideline development and informing changes to health policies. However, clinical guideline development groups (CGDG) are multidisciplinary, and participants such as policymakers, healthcare professionals and patient representatives can face obstacles when trying to understand and use evidence synthesis findings. Summary formats to communicate the results of evidence syntheses have become increasingly common, but it is currently unclear which format is most effective for different stakeholders. This mixed-methods systematic review (MMSR) evaluates the effectiveness and acceptability of different evidence synthesis summary formats for CGDG members. Methods: This protocol follows guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute on MMSRs and is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA)-P guideline. A comprehensive search of six databases will be performed with no language restrictions. Primary outcomes are those relating to the effectiveness and preferences for and attitudes towards the different summary formats. We will include qualitative research and randomised controlled trials. Two reviewers will perform title, abstract, and full-text screening. Independent double-extraction of study characteristics and critical appraisal items will be undertaken using a standardised form. We will use a convergent segregated approach to analyse quantitative and qualitative data separately; results will then be integrated. Discussion: The results of this systematic review will provide an overview of the effectiveness and acceptability of different summary formats for evidence synthesis findings. These findings can be helpful for those in or communicating to guideline development groups. The results can also inform the development and pilot-testing of summary formats for evidence summaries.

Introduction: Evidence syntheses, often in the form of systematic reviews, are essential for clinical guideline development and informing changes to health policies. However, clinical guideline development groups (CGDG) are multidisciplinary, and participants such as policymakers, healthcare professionals and patient representatives can face obstacles when trying to understand and use evidence synthesis findings. Summary formats to communicate the results of evidence syntheses have become increasingly common, but it is currently unclear which format is most effective for different stakeholders. This mixed-methods systematic review (MMSR) evaluates the effectiveness and acceptability of different evidence synthesis summary formats for CGDG members. Methods: This protocol follows guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute on MMSRs and is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA)-P guideline. A comprehensive search of six databases will be performed with no language restrictions. Primary outcomes are those relating to the effectiveness and preferences for and attitudes towards the different summary formats. We will include qualitative research and randomised controlled trials. Two reviewers will perform title, abstract, and full-text screening. Independent double-extraction of study characteristics and critical appraisal items will be undertaken using a standardised form. We will use a convergent segregated approach to analyse quantitative and qualitative data separately; results will then be integrated. Discussion: The results of this systematic review will provide an overview of the effectiveness and acceptability of different summary formats for evidence synthesis findings. These findings can be helpful for those in or communicating to guideline development groups. The results can also inform the development and pilot-testing of summary formats for evidence summaries.