Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread personto-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care (eg, community) settings. MethodsWe did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-toperson virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects metaregressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047. FindingsOur search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0•18, 95% CI 0•09 to 0•38; risk difference [RD] -10•2%, 95% CI -11•5 to -7•5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2•02 per m; p interaction =0•041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0•15, 95% CI 0•07 to 0•34, RD -14•3%, -15•9 to -10•7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12-16-layer cotton masks; p interaction =0•090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0•22, 95% CI 0•12 to 0•39, RD -10•6%, 95% CI -12•5 to -7•7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings.Interpretation The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance.Funding World Health Organization.

Background: Mechanical ventilation is used to treat respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Purpose: To review multiple streams of evidence regarding the benefits and harms of ventilation techniques for coronavirus infections, including that causing COVID-19. Data Sources: 21 standard, World Health Organization-specific and COVID-19-specific databases, without language restrictions, until 1 May 2020. Study Selection: Studies of any design and language comparing different oxygenation approaches in patients with coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), or with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Animal, mechanistic, laboratory, and preclinical evidence was gathered regarding aerosol dispersion of coronavirus. Studies evaluating risk for virus transmission to health care workers from aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) were included. Data Extraction: Independent and duplicate screening, data abstraction, and risk-of-bias assessment (GRADE for certainty of evidence and AMSTAR 2 for included systematic reviews). Data Synthesis: 123 studies were eligible (45 on COVID-19, 70 on SARS, 8 on MERS), but only 5 studies (1 on COVID-19, 3 on SARS, 1 on MERS) adjusted for important confounders. A study in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 reported slightly higher mortality with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) than with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), but 2 opposing studies, 1 in patients with MERS and 1 in patients with SARS, suggest a reduction in mortality with NIV (very-low-certainty evidence). Two studies in patients with SARS report a reduction in mortality with NIV compared with no mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence). Two systematic reviews suggest a large reduction in mortality with NIV compared with conventional oxygen therapy. Other included studies suggest increased odds of transmission from AGPs. Limitation: Direct studies in COVID-19 are limited and poorly reported. Conclusion: Indirect and low-certainty evidence suggests that use of NIV, similar to IMV, probably reduces mortality but may increase the risk for transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers.

Objective: To examine the degree to which Master of Public Health (MPH) programs' course descriptions align with the Public Health Agency of Canada's (PHAC's) core competency categories in order to identify strengths and training gaps in such programs across Canada. Methods: A content analysis of MPH programs in Canada was conducted from July 2019 to November 2019. A sampling frame of programs was obtained from a list from the PHAC Web site. Program information, including mandatory and elective course descriptions, was extracted from each program's Web site and analyzed in NVivo 12. Course descriptions were independently categorized by 2 researchers into 1 or more of the 7 categories of the core competencies outlined by the PHAC. Results: We identified 18 universities with MPH programs with 267 courses across Canada. Thematic analysis revealed that 100% of programs had coursework that addressed the “Public Health Sciences” and “Assessment and Analysis” categories; 93% addressed “Policy and Program Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation”; 67% addressed each of “Communication,” “Leadership,” and “Partnerships, Collaboration, and Advocacy”; and only 56% had course descriptions addressing “Diversity and Inclusiveness.” Conclusions: We find that Canadian MPH programs may lack course offerings addressing core competency categories relating to diversity and inclusiveness, communication, and leadership. Our findings were limited in scope as we relied on program Web sites; thus, further research should explore course content in more depth than this course description analysis allowed and identify ways to close the MPH curricular gaps we identified.