Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40037637›Full record

SynthesisJournal of public health (Oxford, England)2025

Effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions as implemented in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review.

T Ashcroft, E McSwiggan, E Agyei-Manu, M Nundy, N Atkins, J R Kirkwood, M Ben Salem Machiri, V Vardhan, B Lee, E Kubat and 26 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of public health (Oxford, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

36 authors.

T AshcroftUsher Institute, Centre for Global Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4UX, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1829-6132
E McSwigganUsher Institute, Centre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4UX, UK.
E Agyei-ManuUsher Institute, Centre for Global Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4UX, UK.
M NundyUsher Institute, Centre for Global Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4UX, UK.
N AtkinsUsher Institute, Centre for Global Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4UX, UK.
J R KirkwoodUsher Institute, Centre for Global Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4UX, UK.
M Ben Salem MachiriUsher Institute, Centre for Global Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4UX, UK.
V VardhanUsher Institute, Centre for Global Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4UX, UK.
B LeeUsher Institute, Centre for Global Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4UX, UK.
E KubatUsher Institute, Centre for Global Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4UX, UK.
S RavishankarUsher Institute, Centre for Global Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4UX, UK.
P KrishanUsher Institute, Centre for Global Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4UX, UK.
U De SilvaUsher Institute, Centre for Global Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4UX, UK.
E O IyahenUsher Institute, Centre for Global Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4UX, UK.
J RostronUsher Institute, Centre for Global Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4UX, UK.
A ZawiejskaUsher Institute, Centre for Global Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4UX, UK.
K OgarrioUsher Institute, Centre for Global Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4UX, UK.
M HarikarUsher Institute, Centre for Global Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4UX, UK.
S ChishtyUsher Institute, Centre for Global Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4UX, UK.
D MureyiUsher Institute, Centre for Global Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4UX, UK.
B EvansScience Evidence Review Team, Research, Evidence and Knowledge Division, UKHSA, London E14 4PU, UK.
D DuvalScience Evidence Review Team, Research, Evidence and Knowledge Division, UKHSA, London E14 4PU, UK.
S CarvilleClinical and Public Health Response Evidence Review Team, Clinical and Public Health, UKHSA, London E14 4PU, UK.
S BriniClinical and Public Health Response Evidence Review Team, Clinical and Public Health, UKHSA, London E14 4PU, UK.
J HillClinical and Public Health Response Evidence Review Team, Clinical and Public Health, UKHSA, London E14 4PU, UK.
M QureshiClinical and Public Health Response Evidence Review Team, Clinical and Public Health, UKHSA, London E14 4PU, UK.
Z SimmonsScience Evidence Review Team, Research, Evidence and Knowledge Division, UKHSA, London E14 4PU, UK.
I LyellHealth Protection Operation, UKHSA, London E14 4PU, UK.
T KavoiClinical and Public Health Response Evidence Review Team, Clinical and Public Health, UKHSA, London E14 4PU, UK.
M DozierInformation Services, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH3 9DR, UK.
G CurryUsher Institute, Centre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4UX, UK.
J M Ordóñez-MenaNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK.
S de LusignanNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK.
A SheikhUsher Institute, Centre for Medical Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4UX, UK.
E TheodoratouUsher Institute, Centre for Global Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4UX, UK.
R McQuillanUsher Institute, Centre for Global Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4UX, UK.

Funding

United Kingdom Health Security Agency
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough non-pharmaceutical inventions (NPIs) were used globally to control the spread of COVID-19, their effectiveness remains uncertain. We aimed to assess the evidence on NPIs as implemented in the UK, to allow public health bodies to prepare for future pandemics.

methodsWe used rapid systematic methods (search date: January 2024) to identify, critically appraise and synthesize interventional, observational and modelling studies reporting on NPI effectiveness in the UK.

resultsEighty-five modelling, nine observational and three interventional studies were included. Modelling studies had multiple quality issues; six of the 12 non-modelling studies were high quality. The best available evidence was for test and release strategies for case contacts (moderate certainty), which was suggestive of a protective effect. Although evidence for school-related NPIs and universal lockdown was also suggestive of a protective effect, this evidence was considered low certainty. Evidence certainty for the remaining NPIs was very low or inconclusive.

conclusionThe validity and reliability of evidence on the effectiveness of NPIs as implemented in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic is weak. To improve evidence generation and support decision-making during future pandemics or other public health emergencies, it is essential to build evaluation into the design of public health interventions.

Indexed as

Communicable Disease ControlCOVID-19HumansPandemicsPublic HealthSARS-CoV-2United KingdomCOVID-19non-pharmaceutical interventions

Identifiers

PMID40037637
PMCPMC12123321

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.