RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 SARS-Cov-2 prevalence, transmission, health-related outcomes and control strategies in homeless shelters: systematic review and meta-analysis
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.01.14.21249851
DO 10.1101/2021.01.14.21249851
A1 Mohsenpour, Amir
A1 Bozorgmehr, Kayvan
A1 Rohleder, Sven
A1 Stratil, Jan
A1 Costa, Diogo
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/01/15/2021.01.14.21249851.abstract
AB Background People experiencing homelessness (PEH) may be at particular risk for COVID19. We synthesised the evidence on SARS-Cov-2 infection, transmission, outcomes of disease, effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI), and the effectiveness of targeted strategies for infection prevention and control (IPC).Methods Systematic review of articles, reports and grey-literature indexed in electronic databases (EMBASE, WHO-Covid19, Web of Science), pre-print repositories, institutional websites, and handsearching. Empirical papers of any study design addressing Covid-19 in PEH or homeless shelters’ staff in English were included. (PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020187033)Findings Of 194 publications, 13 studies were included (two modelling, ten observational and one qualitative study). All were conducted in high-income countries. Random-effect meta-analysis of prevalence estimates yields a baseline SARS-Cov-2 prevalence of 2·14% (95% Confidence-Interval, 95%CI=1·02-3·27) in PEH and 1·72 % (95%CI=0·31-3·12) in staff. In outbreaks, the pooled prevalence increases to 29·49% (95%CI=16·44-29·55) in PEH and 15·18% (95%CI=8·95-21·42) in staff. Main IPC strategies were universal and rapid testing, expansion of non-congregate housing support, and individual measures in shelters (bed spacing, limited staff rotation).Interpretation Up to 30% PEH and 17% staff are infected during outbreaks of SARS-Cov-2 in homeless shelters. Most studies were conducted in the USA. No studies were found on health-related outcomes or health effects of NPI. An overview and evaluation of IPC strategies for PEH, including a better understanding of disease transmission, and reliable data on PEH within Covid-19 notification systems is needed. Qualitative studies may serve to voice PEH experiences and guide future evaluations and IPC strategies.Funding No source of funding.Evidence before this study People experiencing homelessness (PEH) are at increased risk of infectious, chronic, and mental health adverse conditions. Due to the risk of transmission in shared accommodations, PEH may be particularly vulnerable to SARS-Cov-2 infection and worse clinical outcomes. Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) taken to mitigate the SARS-Cov-2 outbreak may have further aggravated health and social conditions. However, there is no evidence synthesis on the SARS-Cov-2 epidemiology among PEH, the correspondent clinical and other health-related outcomes as well as health effects of NPIs on these groups.Added value of this studyWe reviewed and synthesized existent evidence on the risk of infection and transmission, risk of severe course of disease, effect of NPIs on health outcomes and the effectiveness of implemented measures to avert risks and negative outcomes among PEH. Results of the identified studies suggest that both PEH and shelter staff are at high risk of SARS-Cov-2 infection, especially in case of a local outbreak. Due to the low prevalence of symptoms at the time of a positive SARS-Cov-2 test among PEH, symptom screening alone may not be efficient to control outbreaks. Instead, universal and rapid testing conjugated with expansion of non-congregate housing support, and individual measures in shelters, are discussed as sensible strategies.Implications of all the available evidenceA comprehensive overview of NPIs and shelter strategies targeting PEH and evaluation of their effectiveness and unintended health consequences is needed. Qualitative research considering living realities of PEH can facilitate understanding of their specific needs during the pandemic.Competing Interest StatementThe review has been conducted in the scope of the German Competence Net Public Health Covid-19. JS is volunteering (without financial compensation) for a German NGO which provides medical services free of charge for - among others - individuals living in homeless shelters. He further reports membership of the German social democratic party (SPD). The other authors state that they have no competing interests.Clinical Protocols https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020187033 Funding StatementThis research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The review is based on published literature, no ethical clearance was required.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesDetailed review lists can be provided by the corresponding author upon reasonable request.