Basics of developing a COVID-19 reopening roadmap, a systematic scoping review of reopening roadmaps

Abstract

Background: The necessity of easing pandemic restrictions is explicit. Due to the harsh consequences of lockdowns, governments are willing to find reasonable pathways to reopen their activities. Methods: To find out the basics of developing a reopening roadmap, on 6th-10th August 2020, we conducted a systematic search on Pubmed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science, but no roadmap was found. Then, we manually searched Google to review the grey literature. Two independent authors extracted the data, and the senior author solved the discrepancies.Results: According to the search strategy, finally, sixteen roadmaps were included. Data categorized into four sections: principals, general recommendations for individuals, health key metrics, and in-phases strategy. The number of phases or stages differed from three to six, with a minimum of two weeks considered for each one. Health key metrics were categorized into four subsets: sufficient preventive capacities, appropriate diagnosis capacity, appropriate epidemiological monitoring capacity, and sufficient health system capacity. These metrics were used as the criteria for progressing or returning over the roadmap, which guarantees a roadmap's dynamicity. Noticeably, few roadmaps didn’t mention these criteria that may alter the dynamicity of their roadmap. When some areas face new surges, the roadmap's dynamicity is essential, and it is vital to describe the criteria to stop the reopening process and implement the restrictions again. Conclusions: Providing evidence for policymaking about lifting the COVID-19 restrictions seems to be missed in the literature, should be addressed more, and further studies are recommended.

Determinants of Participation in Immunization against COVID-19 before Distribution of Vaccine in Iran

“…and Askarian et al reported that being a healthcare at least in one parent do not impact the respondents' intention to take vaccine [34,35], while in line with the study by Detoc et al [28], the present study showed that healthcare workers had two folds more intention to take vaccine. The reason could be that healthcare workers' higher information about the process of vaccination, e cacy, and the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine resulted in increasing their willingness to be vaccinated.…”

“…Concern about vaccine hesitancy is not a new phenomenon and the incidence of concerns about vaccine safety is growing worldwide, particularly for COVID-19 vaccine [35]. Several previous studies reported that the low rate of intention to take vaccine against infections in pandemics such as in uenza A (H1N1) and non-pandemics like human papillomavirus (HPV) mostly was lack of trust about vaccine e cacy, safety, and side effects [35,[38][39][40].…”

“…Concern about vaccine hesitancy is not a new phenomenon and the incidence of concerns about vaccine safety is growing worldwide, particularly for COVID-19 vaccine [35]. Several previous studies reported that the low rate of intention to take vaccine against infections in pandemics such as in uenza A (H1N1) and non-pandemics like human papillomavirus (HPV) mostly was lack of trust about vaccine e cacy, safety, and side effects [35,[38][39][40]. On the other hand, we observed that the main reasons that respondents indecisive or reluctant to participate in the COVID-19 vaccination were they thought it had a strong immune system which protected them from getting COVID-19 and vaccination would not decrease the risk of disease transmissibility; while in contrast with these results, Eguia et al investigated about COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Spanish population by online questionnaires, and reported that concerns about the effectivity, safety, and major side effects of the vaccination were the main reasons of respondents answered [33].…”

The Acceptance Rate Toward COVID-19 Vaccine in Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

“…This finding was lower when compared with the study conducted in Turkey (84.6%), 64 South Carolina (60.6%), 65 United States (66.0%), 66 China (63%), 67 Australia (80%), 68 Saudi Arabia (64.72%), 69 UK (86%), 70 Japan (65.7%), 71 Israel (85%), 72 Bangladesh (74.6%), 73 Iran (64.2%), 74 Italy (86.1%), 75 France (77.6%), 76 China (60.4%), 77 Vietnam (76.10%), 78 Pakistan (70.25%), 79 Latin America and the Caribbean (80.0%), 80 and United States (63.7%). 81 This might be due to the differences in the sociodemographic characteristics of the study population and the awareness level of the study participants toward the COVID-19 vaccine.…”

A Systematic Investigation of American Vaccination Preference via Historical Data

“…A study performed in Iran found that respondents who were older, female, or working in healthcare were less likely to accept the vaccine [42], while a study in Pakistan identified income, education level, and contact with COVID-19 as significant influences on vaccine preference [43]. A study conducted in Thailand found political affiliation to be a significant factor on not only vaccine acceptance, but also vaccine type [44]. Studies from both Europe and Asia [44,45] concluded that the idea of vaccination was not only swayed by pre-existing attitudes, but also by ethnic background, country of origin of the vaccine, duration of immunity, and political affiliation.…”