PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Noah A. Haber AU - Emma Clarke-Deelder AU - Avi Feller AU - Emily R. Smith AU - Joshua Salomon AU - Benjamin MacCormack-Gelles AU - Elizabeth M. Stone AU - Clara Bolster-Foucault AU - Jamie R. Daw AU - Laura A. Hatfield AU - Carrie E. Fry AU - Christopher B. Boyer AU - Eli Ben-Michael AU - Caroline M. Joyce AU - Beth S. Linas AU - Ian Schmid AU - Eric H. Au AU - Sarah E. Wieten AU - Brooke A Jarrett AU - Cathrine Axfors AU - Van Thu Nguyen AU - Beth Ann Griffin AU - Alyssa Bilinski AU - Elizabeth A. Stuart TI - Problems with Evidence Assessment in COVID-19 Health Policy Impact Evaluation (PEACHPIE): A systematic review of study design and evidence strength AID - 10.1101/2021.01.21.21250243 DP - 2021 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2021.01.21.21250243 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/12/2021.01.21.21250243.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/12/2021.01.21.21250243.full AB - Introduction Assessing the impact of COVID-19 policy is critical for informing future policies. However, there are concerns about the overall strength of COVID-19 impact evaluation studies given the circumstances for evaluation and concerns about the publication environment. This study systematically reviewed the strength of evidence in the published COVID-19 policy impact evaluation literature.Methods We included studies that were primarily designed to estimate the quantitative impact of one or more implemented COVID-19 policies on direct SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 outcomes. After searching PubMed for peer-reviewed articles published on November 26 or earlier and screening, all studies were reviewed by three reviewers first independently and then to consensus. The review tool was based on previously developed and release review guidance for COVID-19 policy impact evaluation, assessing what impact evaluation method was used, graphical display of outcomes data, functional form for the outcomes, timing between policy and impact, concurrent changes to the outcomes, and an overall rating.Results After 102 articles were identified as potentially meeting inclusion criteria, we identified 36 published articles that evaluated the quantitative impact of COVID-19 policies on direct COVID-19 outcomes. The majority (n=23/36) of studies in our sample examined the impact of stay-at-home requirements. Nine studies were set aside because the study design was considered inappropriate for COVID-19 policy impact evaluation (n=8 pre/post; n=1 cross-section), and 27 articles were given a full consensus assessment. 20/27 met criteria for graphical display of data, 5/27 for functional form, 19/27 for timing between policy implementation and impact, and only 3/27 for concurrent changes to the outcomes. Only 1/27 studies passed all of the above checks, and 4/27 were rated as overall appropriate. Including the 9 studies set aside, reviewers found that only four of the 36 identified published and peer-reviewed health policy impact evaluation studies passed a set of key design checks for identifying the causal impact of policies on COVID-19 outcomes.Discussion The reviewed literature directly evaluating the impact of COVID-19 policies largely failed to meet key design criteria for useful inference. This was largely driven by the circumstances under which policies were passed making it difficult to attribute changes in COVID-19 outcomes to particular policies. More reliable evidence review is needed to both identify and produce policy-actionable evidence, alongside the recognition that actionable evidence is often unlikely to be feasible.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo funding was provided specifically for this research.Elizabeth Stone receives funding under the National Institutes of Health grant T32MH109436. Brooke Jarrett receives funding under the National Institutes of Health grant MH121128.Christopher Boyer receives funding under the National Institutes of Health grant T32HL098048Cathrine Axfors receives funding from the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, grant KAW 2019.0561.Beth Ann Griffin and Elizabeth Stuart were supported by award number P50DA046351 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Elizabeth Stuart was also supported by the Bloomberg American Health Initiative.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:Not human subjects, no IRB approval neededAll 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.YesData, code, the review tool, and the review guidance are stored and available here: https://osf.io/9xmke/files/ https://osf.io/9xmke/files/