&lt;p&gt;A Comparative Study on the Strategies Adopted by the United Kingdom, India, China, Italy, and Saudi Arabia to Contain the Spread of the COVID-19 Pandemic&lt;/p&gt;

Alanezi, Fahad; Aljahdali, Anan; Alyousef, Seham Mansour; Alrashed, Hebah; Mushcab, Hayat; AlThani, Bashair; Alghamedy, Fatemah; Alotaibi, Hessa; Saadah, Amjad; Alanzi, Turki

doi:10.2147/jhl.s266491

Cited by 31 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 27 publications

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As of Oct 28, 2020, it has affected 217 countries and territories around the world, causing 45 million infections and over 1.1 million deaths [ 2 ]. To control the global pandemic, governments around the world have adopted different intervention strategies (such as social distancing, quarantine, isolation, lockdown, curfews, travel restrictions, schools/colleges closing) to contain the spread of COVID-19 [ 3 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A cross-country core strategy comparison in China, Japan, Singapore and South Korea during the early COVID-19 pandemic

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The study aimed to analyze the effectiveness of COVID-19 strategies adopted by China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea. Methods We extracted publicly available data from various official websites, summarized the strategies implemented in these four countries, and assessed the effectiveness of the prevention and control measures adopted by these countries. Results As of October 28, 2020, the growth of daily new confirmed cases has stabilized in China, Singapore, and South Korea. In Japan, the daily new confirmed cases increased sharply since it lifted a state of emergency, but case-fatality maintains at a lower level. The growth of total cases is near stagnant in China and Singapore, with a case-fatality of 5.39 and 0.05% respectively. The case-fatality rate between Japan and South Korea is identical at 1.76%, however, Japan’s growth rate of cases has increased more rapidly than South Korea. Conclusion This study found that China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea accessed the situation within their own borders and implemented different intervention strategies to curb the spread of COVID-19 and maintain lower rates of case-fatality. China, Singapore, and South Korea adopted the containment strategy, while Japan adopted the mitigation strategy. Although Japan’s case-fatality maintained at a low level, daily new cases increased faster than the other three countries. This result indicated that a mitigation strategy could be inferior to a containment strategy.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A cross-country core strategy comparison in China, Japan, Singapore and South Korea during the early COVID-19 pandemic

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, implementing Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPI) such as strict lockdowns, social distancing, and closing of schools, community places, businesses, and other interventions were strategies used to suppress the transmission rate of COVID19. 10 As evidences show that suppression strategies were more effective than mitigation strategies. 10–12 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 10 As evidences show that suppression strategies were more effective than mitigation strategies. 10–12 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring Barriers to Effective Implementation of Public Health Measures for Prevention and Control of COVID-19 Pandemic in Gamo Zone of Southern Ethiopia: Using a Modified Tanahashi Model

Boti¹,

Hussen²,

Shibiru³

et al. 2021

RMHP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Since the occurrence of the COVID-19 pandemic, different public health measures have been implemented to prevent and control the further spread of the disease. However, barriers that influence the effective implementation of public health measures were not explore in Ethiopia especially in study Area. Therefore, this study tried to fill this gap by exploring the barriers to effective implementation of public health measures for prevention and control of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Gamo Zone of southern Ethiopia. Methods The study employed a qualitative study with a phenomenology approach among purposely selected 30 individuals in the community and selected institutions. Key informant interview was used to collect the data. The data were transcribed verbatim and translated into the English language. The transcribed data were read several times to clearly understand the content for further analysis. The analysis of the data was conducted based on the modified Tanahashi framework. Results The study identified different barriers under five main themes: accessibility, acceptability, availability, contact and use, and effective implementation of public health measures related to barriers. The main barriers to effective implementation of public health measures were resistance to change, negligence, lack of community engagement, insufficient training for front line workers, poor supportive supervision, poor law enforcement, and lack of continuous community awareness creation. Beside, acceptability related barriers like cultural and religious norms and availability related barriers like shortage of personal protective equipment and shortage of skilled health professional have also lion share barriers for implementation of the public health measures. Conclusion The study identified different personal, institutional, and societal level barriers for effective implementation of public health measures for the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, proper and targeted continuous community awareness creation with further mandatory law enforcement activities should be implemented by the concerned bodies to mitigate individual and societal level barriers. In addition, the government with relevant stakeholders should give due attention to equip and protect the frontline professionals by availing the necessary logistic and provision of continuous capacity-building activities.

show abstract

“…During this phase the rate of diagnostic technologies emerging averaged 46 per week across all regions, around a third of the number of tests developed in the Rapid Growth Phase ( Figure 6 ). This deceleration in development likely reflects the saturation of the COVID-19 diagnostic market with commercialized solutions offered by the majority of companies/developers in the industry, and the existing deployment of a high level of diagnostics into national services and operations [ 77 ]. Interestingly, our data revealed a resurgence in both MDx and IDx development activity in September, with the number of tests identified similar to that of June ( Figure 6 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Changes to COVID-19 restrictions following the first wave of the pandemic led to a growing demand for rapid diagnostics from some national authorities, because of their ease of use, fast results and scalability [ 16 , 24 , 25 , 31 , 77 ]. The deployment of these tests was to enable the recovery of international travel, the reopening of educational institutions and workplaces, where mass testing became imperative to curb the rate of transmission.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

COVID-19 Impact on Diagnostic Innovations: Emerging Trends and Implications

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diagnostic testing remains the backbone of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) response, supporting containment efforts to mitigate the outbreak. The severity of this crisis and increasing capacity issues associated with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based testing, accelerated the development of diagnostic solutions to meet demands for mass testing. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Innovation Observatory is the national horizon scanning organization in England. Since March, the Innovation Observatory has applied advanced horizon scanning methodologies and tools to compile a diagnostic landscape, based upon data captured for molecular (MDx) and immunological (IDx) based diagnostics (commercialized/in development), for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. In total we identified and tracked 1608 diagnostics, produced by 1045 developers across 54 countries. Our dataset shows the speed and scale in which diagnostics were produced and provides insights into key periods of development and shifts in trends between MDx and IDx solutions as the pandemic progressed. Stakeholders worldwide required timely and detailed intelligence to respond to major challenges, including testing capacity and regulatory issues. Our intelligence assisted UK stakeholders with assessing priorities and mitigation options throughout the pandemic. Here we present the global evolution of diagnostic innovations devised to meet changing needs, their regulation and trends across geographical regions, providing invaluable insights into the complexity of the COVID-19 phenomena.

show abstract

<p>A Comparative Study on the Strategies Adopted by the United Kingdom, India, China, Italy, and Saudi Arabia to Contain the Spread of the COVID-19 Pandemic</p>

Cited by 31 publications

References 27 publications

A cross-country core strategy comparison in China, Japan, Singapore and South Korea during the early COVID-19 pandemic

A cross-country core strategy comparison in China, Japan, Singapore and South Korea during the early COVID-19 pandemic

Exploring Barriers to Effective Implementation of Public Health Measures for Prevention and Control of COVID-19 Pandemic in Gamo Zone of Southern Ethiopia: Using a Modified Tanahashi Model

COVID-19 Impact on Diagnostic Innovations: Emerging Trends and Implications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About