Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine. 2023; 11(1): e52 REV I EW ART I C L E Non-Pharmacologic Interventions in COVID-19 Pandemic Management; a Systematic Review Koorosh Etemad1, Parisa Mohseni2, Saeideh Shojaei1, Seyed Ali Mousavi3, Shakiba Taherkhani1, Fatemeh Fallah Atatalab1, Hadis Ghajari1, Seyed Saeed Hashemi Nazari1, Manoochehr Karami1, Neda Izadi1, Mahmoud Hajipour4∗ 1. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 2. Fertility and Infertility Research Center, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran. 3. Department of Public Health, Shoushtar Faculty of Medical Science, Shoushtar, Iran. 4. Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition Research Center, Research Institute for Children’s Health, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Received: May 2023; Accepted: June 2023; Published online: 23 July 2023 Abstract: Introduction: Different countries throughout the world have adopted non-pharmacologic interventions to reduce and control SARS - CoV-2. In this systematic approach, the impact of non-pharmacologic interventions in management of COVID-19 pandemic was assessed. Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta- Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, systematic search was carried out on the basis of a search strategy on PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and WHO databases on COVID-19. The impact of travel ban, personal protective equipment, dis- tancing, contact tracing, school closure, and social distancing and the combined effect of interventions on COVID-19 were assessed. Results: Of the 14,857 articles found, 44 were relevant. Studies in different countries have shown that various non-pharmacological interventions have been used during the COVID-19 pandemic. The travel ban, either locally or internationally in most of the countries, movement restriction, social distancing, lockdown, Personal Protec- tive Equipment (PPE), quarantine, school closure, work place closure, and contact tracing had a significant impact on the reduction of mortality or morbidity of COVID-19. Conclusion: Evidence shows that the implementation of non- pharmacologic interventions (NPIs), for example, social distancing, quarantine, and personal protective equipment’s are generally effective and the best way to prevent or reduce transmission. However, this study suggests that the effec- tiveness of any NPI alone is probably limited, thus, a combination of various actions, for example, social distancing, isolation, and quarantine, distancing in the workplace and use of personal protective equipment, is more effective in reducing COVID-19. Keywords: physical distancing; quarantine; social isolation; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; prevention and control; systematic review Cite this article as: Etemad K, Mohseni P, Shojaei S, Mousavi SA, Taherkhani S, et al. Non-Pharmacologic Interventions in COVID-19 Pan- demic Management; a Systematic Review. Arch Acad Emerg Med. 2023; 11(1): e52. https://doi.org/10.22037/aaem.v11i1.1828. 1. Introduction The recent surge of a novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV or SARS- CoV-2, which causes COVID-19) was started in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, and was introduced by the World Health Organization as a pandemic and public health issue [1, 2]. The victims of this disease are all humans, and COVID- ∗Corresponding Author: Mahmoud Hajipour; Pediatric Gastroentrology, Hepatology and Nutrition Research Center, Research Institute for Children’s Health, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. E-mail: m.hajipour.13@gmail.com, Tel: +98 (21) 22431993, Fax: +98 (21) 22 43 97 84, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000- 0001-8187-9114. 19 not only disturbed the health systems of all countries, but also disrupted the balance of socioeconomic systems [3]. By the time of writing this article (3 May 2023), based on the dashboard statistics report of WHO, there were 765,222,932 definite diagnoses and 6,921,614 deaths caused by COVID- 19, worldwide [4]. Over a century has passed since the last time a pandemic (in- fluenza pandemic H1N1) had occurred without access to the vaccine in the world [5]. According to John Hopkins Univer- sity report, in the absence of health interventions, COVID-19 could cause 40 million deaths in the world in 2020 [2]. Al- though similar to many viral diseases, medication therapy seems to be a viable solution to control the pandemic infec- This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: https://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem/index.php/AAEM/index K. Etemad et al. 2 tion, there is no definitive treatment to cure COVID-19 infec- tion and the treatments are almost supportive and to elimi- nate symptoms of the disease [6]. In the absence of proper treatment and effective vaccines, non-pharmacologic interventions (NPIs) can be considered as the main pillar of pandemic control [7]; NPIs can cover a wide range of measures, generally in four groups: 1. Per- sonal protective equipment’s such as using mask and hand hygiene; 2. Environmental measures such as disinfecting and ventilation; 3. Social distancing in public places and school closure; 4. The actions associated with travel ban [8]. One of the main objectives of non-pharmacologic interven- tions was reducing the average number of infections gener- ated at time by any infected cases during the infection pe- riod as well as the reduction of the incidence of infection and mortality rates [9]. The results of some studies show that lock down has led to 42% to 81% reduction in disease transmis- sion cases [9-11]. It is, therefore, necessary to conduct an as- sessment of the effectiveness of NPIs, most of which are lo- cal or within a country; however, the evidence obtained from these studies is not yet conclusive as to which NPI was specif- ically effective [12]. Due to heterogeneity in the intensity and quality of the NPIs in different countries, the effectiveness of these methods is different so that the results of some studies suggest that the complete lock down at the national level has contributed to a drop of 81% (CI95%: 75-78) in the transfer of new cases [13]. Some other studies have described social distancing and travel ban as ineffective and school closure, wearing face masks, and quarantining cities (at the same time) as better methods than complete lock down [14]. An overall and comprehensive evaluation of these measures is necessary to determine the effectiveness of each of the NPIs, thus, this study was carried out with the aim of “evaluating non-pharmacologic interventions of COVID-19 in the world ". 2. Methods 2.1. Search strategy A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and WHO databases on COVID-19, from February 2020 to May 2021, in English. Two researchers independently searched for studies. PICO included: Participants: Countries that used non- pharmacological interventions, Interventions: Non- pharmacologic interventions, Comparison: countries that did not use NPIs for epidemic control, Outcomes: Effectiveness of NPIs on COVID-19 outcomes such as mor- bidity and mortality and disease transmission; study design: Observational studies such as cohort, case-control, and community trail. The database searches were conducted using the keywords shown in table 1. 2.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria The inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) studies published in English, 2) studies that included the desired indicators and interventions. The exclusion criteria were as follows: 1) du- plicate articles, 2) gray literature such as non-peer-reviewed dissertations, conference proceedings/papers, letters, news, editorials, and so forth. 2.3. Study selection and data collection After retrieving articles from the mentioned databases and eliminating duplicate articles, two authors conducted the screening and data collection process, independently, based on inclusion criteria. The following information was ex- tracted from the selected studies: the first author’s name, year of publication, place of study, country of origin, aim of the study, interventions (school closing, workplace clos- ing, public event cancelation, social gathering restrictions, public transport closure, stay-at-home requirements, inter- nal movement restrictions, international travel restrictions, public information campaigns, testing policies, contact trac- ing policies, and facial covering policies) and outcome (mor- bidity rate, mortality rate, disease transmission rate, hospi- talization rate, basic reproduction number rate). 2.4. Quality assessment The quality assessment was performed by two reviewers that assessed the quality of data in the included studies. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist to ensure the quality of se- lected studies. After a full-text quality assessment of selected studies, studies with high and medium quality were included in the analyses and finally, the key findings were extracted. 2.5. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence assess- ment The colleagues who cooperated in the search of articles and data extraction are all epidemiologists and also received the necessary training before starting the study; and in several sessions, based on the knowledge and science of the panel members, who were all epidemiologists, the articles for the next stage were selected and then checked for quality. In ad- dition, since the heterogeneity between the studies regarding the outcomes and types of studies was high, the authors de- cided not to perform a meta-analysis and to be satisfied only with a systematic review. 2.6. Data analysis Meta-analysis was not feasible due to the heterogeneous set of interventions studied, as well as substantial differences in study designs, outcomes, and effect measures. We described results narratively. This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: https://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem/index.php/AAEM/index 3 Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine. 2023; 11(1): e52 3. Results Of the 14,857 articles found, 44 were relevant. The study selection process is shown in Figure 1. Studies in different countries have shown that various non-pharmacological in- terventions have been used during the COVID-19 pandemic. The effects of these interventions on various epidemiological outcomes including morbidity, mortality, and disease trans- mission were systematically evaluated and the following re- sults were obtained. 3.1. Travel ban Most studies were consistent in the travel ban intervention. Thus, the travel ban, either locally or internationally, had a significant impact on the reduction of new cases of COVID- 19 in most countries. In the Bendavid study (2021), travel ban intervention in Germany at the local level and the Nether- lands at the international level, and Italy and the United States at the local and international levels had a signifi- cant effect on reducing new cases of COVID-19 [15]. The Costantino and et al. (2020) study also showed that travel re- strictions were very effective in curbing the COVID-19 epi- demic in Australia at the peak of the epidemic wave from China (when COVID-19 was predominantly in China), reduc- ing the incidence of new cases and death up to 87% [16]. 3.2. Social distancing In a longitudinal pretest – posttest study, 0.9% reduction in the daily new cases of COVID-19 was found, 4 to 21 days after applying social distancing intervention in the United States [17]. Another study in the United States and 134 other coun- tries found an overall 65% reduction in the spread rate of COVID-19 cases after 2 weeks of social distancing interven- tion (which included the closure of non-essential workplaces and schools, as well as policies for physical distancing when attending a gathering) [18]. Also, in another study, which was performed as a cohort and examined the number of in- fected people (based on syndromic symptoms diagnosis) in two similar groups in terms of basic characteristics but dif- ferent in terms of location and social distancing intervention (soldiers’ barracks). In the first group, 15% were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 cases and their symptoms were zero, but in the second group, 64% were exposed, 27% of whom had symp- toms (in the same time period and barracks) [19]. Table 2 shows impact of social distancing interventions on COVID- 19 in different countries. 3.3. Lockdown In Lock down intervention, most studies were consistent; for example, in Bendavid (2021), Lockdown in France, the United States, Iran, Germany and the Netherlands signifi- cantly reduced the number of new cases [15]. Also, 81% re- duction in rate of transmission (Rt) in Europe (data from 11 European countries) [9] and 50% reduction in reproduction number (R0) in Australia [16] were the effects of lockdown over the time. Table 3 shows the impact of lockdown on COVID-19 in different countries. 3.4. Isolation Only one study examined the impact of segregation policies on the spread of COVID-19. A study by Huang et al. (2020), with dynamic modeling of disease transmission in Wuhan Province, China, found that full case identification and iso- lation can reduce deaths up to 92% (from 0.0166 to 0.0012 in one month ( January 28 to February 28)) [20]. 3.5. Personal protective equipment The impact of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) inter- vention was examined in 3 studies. A study by Yang et al. (2021) from the United States found that the use of PPE re- duced the rate of transmission or proliferation (Rt) by 7% in the general population and by 20% in over 65 year-olds pop- ulation [11]. Ta-Chou Ng et al. (2020) in Taiwan showed a decrease in basic reproduction number (R0) from 2.5 to 1.30 after one month (April 20 to December 20, 2020) [21]. Cases were reduced from 12.11 to 7.67 (per 10,000) and mortality was reduced from 0.75 to 0.22 (per 10,000) and hospitaliza- tion was reduced from 1.54 to 0.97 (per 10,000) in Delaware [22]; Significant decrease in transfer rate to 0.0151 in Ohio (minimum interquartile range (IQR) = 0.0005 and maximum IQR = 0.0439 from January 8 to January 23, 2020) and reduc- tion of transfer rate to 0.0639 (minimum IQR = 0.05597 and maximum IQR = 0.0637 from April 17 to May 15 ,2020) in New York were also reported [23]. 3.6. Quarantine Decrease in the transfer rate to 0.0603 with minimum IQR = 0.0513 and maximum IQR = 0.0708 in Hubei from January 23 to February 23 and decrease in transfer rate to 0.1531 with minimum IQR = 0.1408 and maximum IQR = 0.1642 in Hubei from February 2 to February 17, And the reduction of the transfer rate to 0.1798 with minimum IQR = 0.1525 and max- imum IQR = 0.2055 in Hubei from February 17 to March 31 has been one of the effects of quarantine intervention [23]. In Wuhan, China, the R0 after the quarantine intervention was studied from June 23 to February 1 and from February 2 to February 16, which decreased from 3.8 to 1.37 and from 1.24 to 0.49, respectively [24]. 3.7. Restriction of movement Reducing the transfer rate to 0.0603 with minimum IQR = 0.0513 and maximum IQR = 0.0708 in China’s Hubei Province from January 23 to February 2 has been the effect of a movement restriction intervention [23]; In another study in This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: https://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem/index.php/AAEM/index K. Etemad et al. 4 Wuhan, China, a traffic ban from January 10 to January 22 in- creased R0 from 2.91 to 3.82 [24]. 3.8. School closure Existing studies show that school closures can potentially reduce transmission during an epidemic. In the study by Klimek-Tulwin et al. (2020), there was a statistically signifi- cant correlation between school closure with the reduction of COVID-19 incidence in the general population. The coun- tries analyzed included data from 18 countries (Argentina, Belgium, Poland, Romania, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Japan, Brazil, Czech, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, and UK) [25]. In the study by Bendavid et al. (2021), single or combined non-pharmacological interven- tions were studied and analyzed at the general population level in England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, the Nether- lands, Spain, the United States, South Korea and Sweden. The school closure intervention showed a significant reduction in new cases of COVID-19 for Sweden only [15]. 3.9. Work place closure The study by Bendavid et al. (2021) showed a significant re- duction for new cases of COVID-19 due to work place closure intervention in the United States [15]. Another study in New York found that after the reduction of the Business Activity In- dex from 100 to 39 in early February to late May (the average number of visits to a favorite place such as a store, restaurant, park, hospital, or museum Per 1,000 people), the rate of pos- itive cases decreased from 53.4% at the beginning of April to 4.7% at the end of May; In other words, the reduction in the daily growth of COVID-19 infection rate was estimated to be 0.12 (standard linear regression coefficient) [26]. 3.10. Contact tracing Cases reduced from 7.51 to 3.35 (per 10,000) and mortality reduced from 0.31 to 0.09 (per 10,000) and hospitalization re- duced from 0.97 to 0.53 (per 10,000) was observed after con- tact tracing in Delaware from May 12 to January 1 2020 [22]. 3.11. Mixed Interventions The decrease in Rt due to mixed interventions has shown dif- ferent values in studies. The Rt reduced from 36% to 96% in different countries based on different mixed interventions. The lowest and highest decrease belonged to quarantine and restriction movement intervention in France; and compre- hensive intervention measures, social distancing, rapid re- action by the prevention and control system, use of masks, travel ban, screening and isolation of outsiders in Jilin, china, respectively. Table 4 shows the effects of mixed interventions on Rt in details. 4. Discussion In total, four studies on social distancing intervention have been carried out in Korea, America, Iran, and several Euro- pean countries, and their studied outcomes were disease in- cidence, mortality, reduction of the epidemic process, and R- value (reproductive number). In all these studies, social dis- tancing reduced the studied outcomes. Three studies were conducted on the lock down intervention in South Africa, India, and Spain, and their studied outcomes included: R0, the rate of disease, and the rate of death and hospitalization; and with the implementation of the inter- vention, the values of the studied outcomes decreased. It has been found that when the implementation of this interven- tion is canceled, the rate of disease attack increases. Two studies have been conducted on the intervention of closing schools in the United States and several other coun- tries, and the results of these studies showed reduction in the first wave of the epidemic and the incidence of the disease, which we observed that the sooner this intervention is im- plemented, the greater the reduction of daily cases. In two studies, the effect of mask use intervention in Amer- ica and Delaware has been investigated and, in both studies, we have observed that the use of masks reduces the daily in- cidence of diseases and the implementation of this interven- tion together with other public interventions has a significant effect on reducing cases of infection. The impact of non-pharmacologic interventions in prevent- ing COVID-19 is one of the most important and serious issues that impose uncertainty among politicians, economists, and professionals [2]. In general, since the transmission rate at the early stages of the disease is lower, the disease spreads in certain groups at the early stages of the disease, and then enters the general population in the later stages. Hence, if health systems continue to identify groups at risk as soon as possible through investigation, interventions such as quar- antine and contact tracing in the early stages of the epidemic may be able to slow the epidemic. However, if the disease en- ters the public population, population-based interventions such as travel ban, physical distancing, and . . . should be used. It is therefore necessary to draw an overall conclusion regarding the types of non-pharmacologic interventions, given the implementation of different non-pharmacologic interventions throughout the world, which impose different costs to the governments and many challenges to individ- uals, industries, and organizations. These studies provide a foundation for the use of targeted actions and interven- tions to make connection between effective factors and non- pharmacologic interventions, and reducing the transmission of the disease. It is imperative for us to apply appropriate efforts to strengthen the primary health care system in or- der to counter COVID-19 epidemic to reduce the chances This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: https://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem/index.php/AAEM/index 5 Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine. 2023; 11(1): e52 of other epidemics in the future [2]. A better understand- ing of non-pharmaceutical interventions will help politicians learn how to implement interventions at the regional level [27]. In general, the purpose of non-pharmacologic inter- ventions is to decrease transmission (R0) and reduce R0 to < 1 or to keep the disease in manageable condition [28]. All countries have implemented non-pharmacologic interven- tions to control COVID-19. However, there is a significant shift in the amount and type of implemented interventions. In some countries, only some interventions such as travel ban and quarantine are implemented, but in others, a com- bination of types of interventions, such as school closure, travel ban, lock down, and . . . are implemented. The im- pact of any intervention alone may be limited, but a combi- nation of these interventions can be very effective and have a huge impact on reducing the transmission of disease, ex- haustion of the health care system, and mortality due to the disease. In a study in China it was mentioned that without non-pharmacologic interventions, the number of cases di- agnosed with the disease would be 51 times in Wuhan, 92 times in Hubei, and 125 times in other states [29]. The re- sults of the study conducted in China showed that the travel ban causes 3-5 days delay in the progress and growth of the disease. A New York study also showed that the use of a mask could reduce deaths by 17%-45% over two months. A study in China showed that compliance with social distancing and the closure of the epidemic center reduced the incidence of new infection by 98.9%. While, another study showed that social distancing reduced the growth rates of definite cases of infection in five countries (Australia, Belgium, Italy, Malaysia, and South Korea) by an average of 52.37%. The results of the studies show that social distancing intervention and its com- bination with other non-pharmacologic are correlated with the sharp reduction of Rt rate of COVID-19, and it seems that social distancing can be adopted as one of the primary non- pharmacologic interventions to combat the disease [30]. Fol- lowing up and contact tracing, and quarantining cases have been identified as highly effective guidelines in controlling new cases of COVID-19. Most modeling methods and the results of previous experiences of health systems from epi- demics have shown that if social interactions attain their nor- mal level, the disease can be increased again. Therefore, some non-pharmacologic interventions such as social dis- tancing should continue for several months [29]. Travel ban (either partially or locally) can be very effective to curb the COVID-19 epidemic, preventing a very larger epi- demic. The effectiveness of the travel ban in countries with high incidence of disease is the claim [31], and the prohibi- tion of trips from countries with high incidence of disease at the international level and from provinces with red status is defined as an attempt to control the COVID-19 epidemics. In general, public-based and high-risk group interventions, such as social distancing, lock down, and personal protection equipment were more effective compared to public-based interventions including detection, contact tracing, and 14- day quarantine [32, 33]. In other words, population-based in- terventions can be increased as a supplement to case-based and marker-based strategies to compensate the ineffective- ness of case-based interventions. However, “pandemic fa- tigue" resulting from the maintenance of behavioral changes, such as physical distance and covering the face, may result in reduction of population-based effects. Several limitations should be considered in the conclusion of this review study: most studies were based on epidemio- logic modeling, so the results may be influenced by the as- sumptions and the input parameters of those models. Differ- ent countries with various geographical, political, economic, belief status and . . . conditions have implemented some of these interventions but the same effects were not neces- sarily exhibited, so generalizations should be addressed by considering all these components. Various studies had no agreement on the definitions and scope of social distancing, and this may cause incorrect conclusion regarding this in- tervention. For example, in the study by Siedner and col- leagues in the United States, the cancellation of public events and school closure are defined as social distancing acts [34]; while, in the study by McGrail et al., policies for social dis- tancing including workplaces and school closure were not es- sential and physical distance when present in the public was used for preventing the transmission of the virus [18]. Several factors such as population density, health care infrastructure, number of tests, weather, demographic characteristics, and other cases are likely to contribute to the extent of COVID- 19 spread, which are not considered in these studies. Differ- ent levels of intervention (county / state or country / coun- try), percentage of coverage of interventions, and even the administrative differences of interventions (optional or com- pulsory) cause widespread differences in conclusions and we observe the variations in the size of effects. 5. Conclusion In this study, the combined effect of case-based interventions and population-based interventions in succeeding to control COVID-19 epidemics were investigated. Evidence shows that the implementation of non-pharmacologic interventions, for example, social distancing, quarantine, and personal protec- tive equipment’s are generally effective and the best way to prevent or reduce transmission. However, this study sug- gests that the effectiveness of any NPI alone is probably lim- ited, thus, a combination of various actions, for example, social distancing, isolation, and quarantine, distancing in the workplace and use of personal protective equipment’s, is more effective in reducing COVID-19 cases. In addition, This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: https://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem/index.php/AAEM/index K. Etemad et al. 6 both the government and the public should follow the pol- icy of testing, tracking, and treatment as well as other pub- lic health measures, including physical distancing and use of face masks and sanitizers for safety. Therefore, research helps to compare the effectiveness of interventions to provide us with more evidence for future pandemics. 6. Declarations 6.1. Acknowledgments We would like to express our thanks to Research Assistant Shahid Beheshtit University of Medical Sciences. 6.2. Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no competing interest. 6.3. Funding None. 6.4. Authors’ contribution Parisa Mohseni, Saeideh Shojaei, Seyed Ali Mousavi, and Shakiba Taherkhani wrote the manuscript and participated in the literature review. Fatemeh Fallah Atatalab, Hadis Ghajari and Mahmoud Hajipour participated in the litera- ture review. Koorosh Etemad, Seyed Saeed Hashemi Nazari, Manoochehr Karami, Neda Izadi, and Mahmoud Hajipour supervised, and checked the quality of the study. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. 6.5. Using artificial Intelligence chatbots None. 6.6. Ethics Statement The study protocol was approved by the ethics committee of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences with code: IR.SBMU.RETECH.REC.1400.090. References 1. Lakhani HV, Pillai SS, Zehra M, Sharma I, Sodhi K. Sys- tematic Review of Clinical. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(12). 2. Regmi K, Lwin CM. Impact of non-pharmaceutical inter- ventions for reducing transmission of COVID-19: a sys- tematic review and meta-analysis protocol. BMJ open. 2020;10(10):e041383. 3. Chilamakuri R, Agarwal S. COVID-19: Characteristics and Therapeutics. Cells. 2021;10(2). 4. World Heath Organisation. Coronavirus dis- ease (COVID-19) pandemic 2022 [Available from: https://www.who.int/data#dashboards. 5. Ferguson N LD, Nedjati Gilani G, Imai N, Ainslie K, Baguelin M, et al. Report 9: Impact of non- pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID19 mortality and healthcare demand. Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team.2020,16 (3), 1-20. 6. El Khiat A, Hamdan YA, Tamegart L, Draoui A, Aglagane A, El Fari R, et al. Therapeutic Management of COVID- 19 Patients: Pharmacological and Non-Pharmacological Approaches. Handbook of Research on Pathophysiology and Strategies for the Management of COVID-19: IGI Global; 2022. p. 210-20. 7. Odusanya OO, Odugbemi BA, Odugbemi TO, Ajisegiri WS. COVID-19: A review of the effectiveness of non- pharmacological interventions. Niger Postgrad Med J. 2020;27(4):261. 8. Imai N, Gaythorpe KA, Abbott S, Bhatia S, van Els- land S, Prem K, et al. Adoption and impact of non- pharmaceutical interventions for COVID-19. Wellcome Open Res, 5: 59. 2020. 9. Flaxman S, Mishra S, Gandy A, Unwin HJT, Mellan TA, Coupland H, et al. Estimating the effects of non- pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe. Nature. 2020;584(7820):257-61. 10. Salje H, Tran Kiem C, Lefrancq N, Courtejoie N, Bosetti P, Paireau J, et al. Estimating the burden of SARS-CoV-2 in France. Science. 2020;369(6500):208-11. 11. Yang W, Shaff J, Shaman J. Effectiveness of non- pharmaceutical interventions to contain COVID-19: a case study of the 2020 spring pandemic wave in New York City. J R Soc Interface. 2021;18(175):20200822. 12. Banholzer N, Van Weenen E, Lison A, Cenedese A, Seel- iger A, Kratzwald B, et al. Estimating the effects of non- pharmaceutical interventions on the number of new in- fections with COVID-19 during the first epidemic wave. PloS one. 2021;16(6):e0252827. 13. Esra R, Jamieson L, Fox MP, Letswalo D, Ngcobo N, Mn- gadi S, Estill J, Meyer-Rath G, Keiser O. Evaluating the im- pact of non-pharmaceutical interventions for SARS-CoV- 2 on a global scale. MedRxiv. 2020 Aug 5:2020-07. 14. Chen X, Qiu Z. Scenario analysis of non-pharmaceutical interventions on global COVID-19 transmissions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.04529. 2020 Apr 7. 15. Bendavid E, Oh C, Bhattacharya J, Ioannidis JP. Assess- ing mandatory stay-at-home and business closure ef- fects on the spread of COVID-19. Eur J Clin Invest. 2021;51(4):e13484. 16. Costantino V, Heslop DJ, MacIntyre CR. The effective- ness of full and partial travel bans against COVID-19 spread in Australia for travellers from China during and after the epidemic peak in China. J Travel Med. 2020;27(5):taaa081. 17. Siedner MJ, Harling G, Reynolds Z, Gilbert RF, Haneuse S, This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: https://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem/index.php/AAEM/index 7 Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine. 2023; 11(1): e52 Venkataramani AS, et al. Social distancing to slow the US COVID-19 epidemic: Longitudinal pretest–posttest com- parison group study. PLoS Med. 2020;17(8):e1003244. 18. McGrail DJ, Dai J, McAndrews KM, Kalluri R. Enacting national social distancing policies corresponds with dra- matic reduction in COVID19 infection rates. PloS one. 2020;15(7):e0236619. 19. Bielecki M, Züst R, Siegrist D, Meyerhofer D, Crameri GAG, Stanga Z, et al. Social distancing alters the clinical course of COVID-19 in young adults: A comparative co- hort study. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;72(4):598-603. 20. Huang Y, Wu Y, Zhang W. Comprehensive identifica- tion and isolation policies have effectively suppressed the spread of COVID-19. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. 2020;139:110041. 21. Ng T-C, Cheng H-Y, Chang H-H, Liu C-C, Yang C-C, Jian S-W, et al. Comparison of estimated effectiveness of case- based and population-based interventions on COVID-19 containment in Taiwan. JAMA Intern Med . 2021. 22. Kanu FA, Smith EE, Offutt-Powell T, Hong R, Teams CT, Dinh T-H, et al. Declines in SARS-CoV-2 transmission, hospitalizations, and mortality after implementation of mitigation measures—Delaware, March–June 2020. Mor- bidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2020;69(45):1691. 23. Wang X, Ren R, Kattan MW, Jehi L, Cheng Z, Fang K. Pub- lic Health Interventions’ Effect on Hospital Use in Pa- tients With COVID-19: Comparative Study. JMIR public health and surveillance. 2020;6(4):e25174. 24. Pan A, Liu L, Wang C, Guo H, Hao X, Wang Q, et al. Asso- ciation of public health interventions with the epidemi- ology of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, China. Jama. 2020;323(19):1915-23. 25. Klimek-Tulwin M, Tulwin T. Early school closures can re- duce the first-wave of the COVID-19 pandemic develop- ment. J Public Health. 2020:1-7. 26. Borjas GJ. Peer Reviewed: Business Closures, Stay-at- Home Restrictions, and COVID-19 Testing Outcomes in New York City. Prev Chronic Dis. 2020;17. 27. Iezadi S, Azami-Aghdash S, Ghiasi A, Rezapour A, Pourasghari H, Pashazadeh F, et al. Effectiveness of the non-pharmaceutical public health interventions against COVID-19; a protocol of a systematic review and realist review. PloS one. 2020;15(9):e0239554. 28. Regmi K, Lwin CM. Factors Associated with the Imple- mentation of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions for Re- ducing Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A System- atic Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(8). 29. Patiño-Lugo DF, Vélez M, Velásquez Salazar P, Vera- Giraldo CY, Vélez V, Marín IC, et al. Non-pharmaceutical interventions for containment, mitigation and suppres- sion of COVID-19 infection. Colombia medica (Cali, Colombia). 2020;51(2):e4266. 30. Bo Y, Guo C, Lin C, Zeng Y, Li HB, Zhang Y, et al. Effective- ness of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 transmission in 190 countries from 23 January to 13 April 2020. International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the Int J Infect Dis. 2021;102:247- 53. 31. Costantino V, Heslop DJ, MacIntyre CR. The effectiveness of full and partial travel bans against COVID-19 spread in Australia for travellers from China during and after the epidemic peak in China. J Travel Med. 2020;27(5). 32. Ng TC, Cheng HY, Chang HH, Liu CC, Yang CC, Jian SW, et al. Comparison of Estimated Effectiveness of Case-Based and Population-Based Interventions on COVID-19 Con- tainment in Taiwan. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(7):913- 21. 33. Yang W, Shaff J, Shaman J. Effectiveness of non- pharmaceutical interventions to contain COVID-19: a case study of the 2020 spring pandemic wave in New York City. J R Soc Interface. 2021;18(175):20200822. 34. Siedner MJ, Harling G, Reynolds Z, Gilbert RF, Haneuse S, Venkataramani AS, et al. Social distancing to slow the US COVID-19 epidemic: Longitudinal pretest-posttest com- parison group study. PLoS Med. 2020;17(8):e1003244 35. Choi S, Ki M. Analyzing the effects of social distancing on the COVID-19 pandemic in Korea using mathematical modeling. epiH. 2020;42. 36. Kerr L, Kendall C, Silva AAMd, Aquino EML, Pescarini JM, Almeida RLFd, et al. COVID-19 in Northeast Brazil: achievements and limitations in the responses of the state governments. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva. 2020;25:4099-120. 37. Qureshi AI, Suri M, Chu H, Suri H, Suri A. Early man- dated social distancing is a strong predictor of reduc- tion in peak daily new COVID-19 cases. Public Health. 2021;190:160-7. 38. Alimohamadi Y, Holakouie-Naieni K, Sepandi M, Taghdir M. Effect of social distancing on COVID-19 incidence and mortality in Iran since February 20 to May 13, 2020: an interrupted time series analysis. Risk Manag Healthc Pol- icy. 2020:1695-700. 39. Hernandez A, Correa-Agudelo E, Kim H, Branscum AJ, Miller FD, MacKinnon N, et al. On the impact of early non-pharmaceutical interventions as containment strategies against the COVID-19 pandemic. medRxiv. 2020:2020.05. 05.20092304. 40. Salvatore M, Basu D, Ray D, Kleinsasser M, Purkayastha S, Bhattacharyya R, et al. Comprehensive public health evaluation of lockdown as a non-pharmaceutical in- tervention on COVID-19 spread in India: national trends masking state-level variations. BMJ open. 2020;10(12):e041778. 41. Patel P, Athotra A, Vaisakh T, Dikid T, Jain SK. Im- This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: https://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem/index.php/AAEM/index K. Etemad et al. 8 pact of nonpharmacological interventions on COVID-19 transmission dynamics in India. Indian J Public Health. 2020;64(6):142-6. 42. Yung C, Saffari E, Liew C. Time to Rt< 1 for COVID-19 public health lockdown measures. Epidemiology & Infec- tion. 2020;148:e301. 43. Pillai J, Motloba P, Motaung K, Ozougwu L, Ikalafeng B, Marinda E, et al. The effect of lockdown regulations on SARS-CoV-2 infectivity in Gauteng Province, South Africa. SAMJ. 2020;110(11):1119-23. 44. Ji T, Chen H-L, Xu J, Wu L-N, Li J-J, Chen K, et al. Lock- down contained the spread of 2019 novel coronavirus disease in Huangshi city, China: Early epidemiological findings. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71(6):1454-60. 45. Houvèssou GM, Souza TPd, Silveira MFd. Lockdown- type containment measures for COVID-19 prevention and control: a descriptive ecological study with data from South Africa, Germany, Brazil, Spain, United States, Italy and New Zealand, February-August 2020. Epidemi- ologia e Serviços de Saúde. 2021;30. 46. Zhang X, Warner ME. COVID-19 policy differences across US states: shutdowns, reopening, and mask mandates. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(24):9520. 47. Siqueira CAdS, Freitas YNLd, Cancela MdC, Carvalho M, Oliveras-Fabregas A, de Souza DLB. The effect of lock- down on the outcomes of COVID-19 in Spain: An eco- logical study. PloS one. 2020;15(7):e0236779. 48. Andronico A, Tran Kiem C, Paireau J, Succo T, Bosetti P, Lefrancq N, et al. Evaluating the impact of curfews and other measures on SARS-CoV-2 transmission in French Guiana. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):1634. 49. Zhao Q, Wang Y, Yang M, Li M, Zhao Z, Lu X, et al. Eval- uating the effectiveness of measures to control the novel coronavirus disease 2019 in Jilin Province, China. BMC Infect Dis. 2021;21(1):1-12. 50. Sugishita Y, Kurita J, Sugawara T, Ohkusa Y. Effects of vol- untary event cancellation and school closure as counter- measures against COVID-19 outbreak in Japan. PloS one. 2020;15(12):e0239455. 51. Mahikul W, Chotsiri P, Ploddi K, Pan-Ngum W. Evalu- ating the impact of intervention strategies on the first wave and predicting the second wave of COVID-19 in Thailand: a mathematical modeling study. Biology. 2021;10(2):80. 52. Ng T-C, Cheng H-Y, Chang H-H, Liu C-C, Yang C-C, Jian S-W, et al. Comparison of estimated effectiveness of case-based and population-based interventions on COVID-19 containment in Taiwan. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(7):913-21. 53. Du Z, Xu X, Wang L, Fox SJ, Cowling BJ, Galvani AP, et al. Effects of proactive social distancing on COVID- 19 outbreaks in 58 cities, China. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26(9):2267. 54. Islam N, Sharp SJ, Chowell G, Shabnam S, Kawachi I, Lacey B, et al. Physical distancing interventions and in- cidence of coronavirus disease 2019: natural experiment in 149 countries. bmj. 2020;370. This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: https://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem/index.php/AAEM/index 9 Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine. 2023; 11(1): e52 Table 1: Search strategy Search Terms 1. COVID COVID 19 OR COVID 19 OR SARS cov 2 OR SARS cov 2 OR severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 OR ncov OR 2019 ncov OR coronavirus infections OR coronavirus OR coronavirus OR coronaviruses OR betacoronavirus OR betacoronavirus OR betacoronaviruses OR wuhan coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic OR COVID-2019 OR 2019-nCoV OR Betacoronavirus SARS coronavirus2 SARS cov OR SARS virus OR SARS virus OR SARS OR SARS2 OR SARS-2 OR SARS coronavirus 2 OR SARS-corona-virus2 2. Non-pharmaceutical Interventions Social Isolation OR isolation strategy OR isolation OR patient isolation OR patient isolation OR patient isolators OR patient isolators OR cohorting OR community containment OR isolation strategy OR isolation OR Home Isolation OR physical contact OR physical distancing OR quarantine OR quarantines OR quarantine OR social distance OR quarantines OR quarantined OR quarantining OR social distance OR Social distancing OR Banning OR distancing OR Contact tracing OR Contact Investigation OR Contact Screening School closures OR Work- place closure OR University closure OR University closures OR Travel restrictions OR Public events banned OR Event ban OR Gathering ban Venue closure OR Border closure OR lockdown OR Curfews OR non-pharmaceutical interventions 3. Reduce transmission reduce OR reduced OR reduces OR transmission [MeSH Subheading] OR transmission OR transmissions OR Coronavirus Infec- tions/prevention and control [MAJR] OR Pandemics/prevention and control [MAJR] OR prevention and control (MeSH Subheading) OR prevention and control OR prevention OR reduce infection OR Coronavirus Infections/prevention and control [MAJR] OR Pan- demics/prevention and control [MAJR] 1 AND 2 AND 3 Table 2: Effects of Social distancing interventions on COVID-19 pandemic management Intervention Place Impact of intervention South Korea [35] RT reduction from 3.53 to 0.45 (February 18 to April 29) Brazil [36] RT reduction from 1.76 to 0.71 in Ceara area (March 14 to March 28) RT Reduction from 1.45 to 0.87 in Maranhão region (May 5 to May 19) From 0.87 to 0.5 (after 15 days) United States of America [37] 51% reduction in the number of new COVID-19 cases ( January 22 to April 25) Iran [38] 82% reduction in COVID-19 cases (February 20 to May 13) 7% reduction in deaths (February 20 to May 13) Social distancing United States [17] 0.9% reduction in daily COVID-19 incidence (4 to 21 days after intervention) The United States and 134 other countries [18] 65% reduction in the spread rate of COVID-19 cases (after 2 weeks) Austria, Belgium, Italy, Malaysia, and South Korea [39] 52.37% reduction in growth rate of confirmed cases Brazil [36] RT reduction from 1.76 to 0.71 in Ceara area (March 14 to March 28) RT Reduction from 1.45 to 0.87 in Maranhão region (May 5 to May 19) From 0.87 to 0.5 (after 15 days) RT: Rate of transmission This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: https://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem/index.php/AAEM/index K. Etemad et al. 10 Table 3: Impact of lockdown on COVID-19 pandemic management Intervention Place Impact of intervention 11 European countries [9] 81% reduction in RT Australia [16] 50% reduction R0 India [40] Reduction of R0 from 3.36 to 1.27 India [41] Reduction of R0 from 2.38 to 2.04 with an average coverage of 18% of the intervention (March 25 to May 18) Singapore [42] Reduction of R0 from 1.03 to 0.85 with 100% coverage of the intervention (April 4 to April 14) Delaware (United States) [22] Reduction of cases from 11.71 to 4.72 Mortality reduction from 0.75 to 0.31 Hospitalization reduction from 1.5 to 1.24 (per 10,000 people) (March 24 to April 24) Lockdown South Africa [43] Exposure rate reduced from 3.28% to 1.53% (April 1 to April 30) Huangshi (China) [44] Decrease in the number of cases from 103.9 to an average of 37 and the number of deaths from 51.1 to an average of 10.5 (after 3 weeks) South Africa, Germany, Spain, Italy, New Zealand [45] Reduction rate (per million) in South Africa: from 3.7 to 1.7 Germany: from 37.5 to 33.7 Spain: from 176.3 to 82 Italy: from 0.92 to 52.1 New Zealand: from 7.5 to 1.7 United States of America [46] Reduction of daily infection growth rate from 0.19 to -0.08 (standard linear regression coefficients) (March 19 to April 19) New York [26] Decrease in the number of positive cases from 53.4% at the beginning of April to 4.7% by increasing the lockdown index (restriction of business activity and staying at home) Spain [47] Average percentage change in daily incidence, hospitalization cases, and ICU hospital- ization of -3.62, -6.2 and -8.83, respectively (March 15 to April 25) RT: Rate of transmission; R0: Reproductive number; ICU: Intensive Care Unit. Table 4: Effects of mixed interventions on COVID-19 pandemic management Impact of intervention Place Mix intervention 36% reduction in RT (from 1.7 before intervention to 1.1 after intervention) France [48] Global quarantine, restriction of movement 96% decrease in RT (from 1.64 to 0.05) Jilin (China) [49] Comprehensive intervention measures, social distancing, rapid reaction by the prevention and control system, use of masks, travel ban, screening and isolation of outsiders 57% decrease in RT (2.53 to 1.07) Japan [50] Voluntary cancellation of events and gatherings, school closures 74% decrease in RT (2.68 to 0.7) Thailand [51] Social distancing, telecommuting, hand washing, face masks, quarantine 70.7% decrease in RT New York [11] School closures, voluntary or forced stay at home 38% reduction in R0 from 2.5 to 1.53 (April 20 to December 20, 2020) Taiwan [52] Case detection, contact tracing, 14-day quarantine Reduction of cases to 82%, mortality to 100% Hospitalization to 88% (April 20 to Jan- uary 20) Delaware (United States) [22] Use of mask, contact tracing Reduction of RT to less than 1 11 European countries [9] Case-based isolation, encouragement of social distance, quarantine, closure of schools and universities, prohibition of public events 53.2% decrease in R0 from 0.71 to 0.33 ( January 17 to February 10) Xi’an (China) [53] Isolation of confirmed cases, cessation of public transport within the city, cessation of travel between cities, reporting of confirmed cases, quarantine, forced social distance88.6% decrease in R0 from 0.7 to 0.08 ( January 21 to February 14) Nanjing (China) [53] Overall reduction in the incidence of COVID-19 by 13% Data from 149 countries [54] School and workplaces closures, cessation of public transportation, restric- tions on public gatherings and public events, restrictions on travel, social dis- tancing RT: Rate of transmission; R0: Reproductive number; ICU: Intensive Care Unit. This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: https://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem/index.php/AAEM/index 11 Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine. 2023; 11(1): e52 Figure 1: Flow diagram for the selection process of identified articles. This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: https://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem/index.php/AAEM/index Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusion Declarations References