thesis statement of covid 19 brainly

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 04 June 2021

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic: an overview of systematic reviews

• Israel Júnior Borges do Nascimento 1 , 2 ,
• Dónal P. O’Mathúna 3 , 4 ,
• Thilo Caspar von Groote 5 ,
• Hebatullah Mohamed Abdulazeem 6 ,
• Ishanka Weerasekara 7 , 8 ,
• Ana Marusic 9 ,
• Livia Puljak   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8467-6061 10 ,
• Vinicius Tassoni Civile 11 ,
• Irena Zakarija-Grkovic 9 ,
• Tina Poklepovic Pericic 9 ,
• Alvaro Nagib Atallah 11 ,
• Santino Filoso 12 ,
• Nicola Luigi Bragazzi 13 &
• Milena Soriano Marcolino 1

On behalf of the International Network of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (InterNetCOVID-19)

BMC Infectious Diseases volume  21 , Article number:  525 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

17k Accesses

35 Citations

14 Altmetric

Metrics details

Navigating the rapidly growing body of scientific literature on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is challenging, and ongoing critical appraisal of this output is essential. We aimed to summarize and critically appraise systematic reviews of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in humans that were available at the beginning of the pandemic.

Nine databases (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Sciences, PDQ-Evidence, WHO’s Global Research, LILACS, and Epistemonikos) were searched from December 1, 2019, to March 24, 2020. Systematic reviews analyzing primary studies of COVID-19 were included. Two authors independently undertook screening, selection, extraction (data on clinical symptoms, prevalence, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, diagnostic test assessment, laboratory, and radiological findings), and quality assessment (AMSTAR 2). A meta-analysis was performed of the prevalence of clinical outcomes.

Eighteen systematic reviews were included; one was empty (did not identify any relevant study). Using AMSTAR 2, confidence in the results of all 18 reviews was rated as “critically low”. Identified symptoms of COVID-19 were (range values of point estimates): fever (82–95%), cough with or without sputum (58–72%), dyspnea (26–59%), myalgia or muscle fatigue (29–51%), sore throat (10–13%), headache (8–12%) and gastrointestinal complaints (5–9%). Severe symptoms were more common in men. Elevated C-reactive protein and lactate dehydrogenase, and slightly elevated aspartate and alanine aminotransferase, were commonly described. Thrombocytopenia and elevated levels of procalcitonin and cardiac troponin I were associated with severe disease. A frequent finding on chest imaging was uni- or bilateral multilobar ground-glass opacity. A single review investigated the impact of medication (chloroquine) but found no verifiable clinical data. All-cause mortality ranged from 0.3 to 13.9%.

Conclusions

In this overview of systematic reviews, we analyzed evidence from the first 18 systematic reviews that were published after the emergence of COVID-19. However, confidence in the results of all reviews was “critically low”. Thus, systematic reviews that were published early on in the pandemic were of questionable usefulness. Even during public health emergencies, studies and systematic reviews should adhere to established methodological standards.

Peer Review reports

The spread of the “Severe Acute Respiratory Coronavirus 2” (SARS-CoV-2), the causal agent of COVID-19, was characterized as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) in March 2020 and has triggered an international public health emergency [ 1 ]. The numbers of confirmed cases and deaths due to COVID-19 are rapidly escalating, counting in millions [ 2 ], causing massive economic strain, and escalating healthcare and public health expenses [ 3 , 4 ].

The research community has responded by publishing an impressive number of scientific reports related to COVID-19. The world was alerted to the new disease at the beginning of 2020 [ 1 ], and by mid-March 2020, more than 2000 articles had been published on COVID-19 in scholarly journals, with 25% of them containing original data [ 5 ]. The living map of COVID-19 evidence, curated by the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre), contained more than 40,000 records by February 2021 [ 6 ]. More than 100,000 records on PubMed were labeled as “SARS-CoV-2 literature, sequence, and clinical content” by February 2021 [ 7 ].

Due to publication speed, the research community has voiced concerns regarding the quality and reproducibility of evidence produced during the COVID-19 pandemic, warning of the potential damaging approach of “publish first, retract later” [ 8 ]. It appears that these concerns are not unfounded, as it has been reported that COVID-19 articles were overrepresented in the pool of retracted articles in 2020 [ 9 ]. These concerns about inadequate evidence are of major importance because they can lead to poor clinical practice and inappropriate policies [ 10 ].

Systematic reviews are a cornerstone of today’s evidence-informed decision-making. By synthesizing all relevant evidence regarding a particular topic, systematic reviews reflect the current scientific knowledge. Systematic reviews are considered to be at the highest level in the hierarchy of evidence and should be used to make informed decisions. However, with high numbers of systematic reviews of different scope and methodological quality being published, overviews of multiple systematic reviews that assess their methodological quality are essential [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]. An overview of systematic reviews helps identify and organize the literature and highlights areas of priority in decision-making.

In this overview of systematic reviews, we aimed to summarize and critically appraise systematic reviews of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in humans that were available at the beginning of the pandemic.

Methodology

Research question.

This overview’s primary objective was to summarize and critically appraise systematic reviews that assessed any type of primary clinical data from patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. Our research question was purposefully broad because we wanted to analyze as many systematic reviews as possible that were available early following the COVID-19 outbreak.

Study design

We conducted an overview of systematic reviews. The idea for this overview originated in a protocol for a systematic review submitted to PROSPERO (CRD42020170623), which indicated a plan to conduct an overview.

Overviews of systematic reviews use explicit and systematic methods for searching and identifying multiple systematic reviews addressing related research questions in the same field to extract and analyze evidence across important outcomes. Overviews of systematic reviews are in principle similar to systematic reviews of interventions, but the unit of analysis is a systematic review [ 14 , 15 , 16 ].

We used the overview methodology instead of other evidence synthesis methods to allow us to collate and appraise multiple systematic reviews on this topic, and to extract and analyze their results across relevant topics [ 17 ]. The overview and meta-analysis of systematic reviews allowed us to investigate the methodological quality of included studies, summarize results, and identify specific areas of available or limited evidence, thereby strengthening the current understanding of this novel disease and guiding future research [ 13 ].

A reporting guideline for overviews of reviews is currently under development, i.e., Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR) [ 18 ]. As the PRIOR checklist is still not published, this study was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2009 statement [ 19 ]. The methodology used in this review was adapted from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and also followed established methodological considerations for analyzing existing systematic reviews [ 14 ].

Approval of a research ethics committee was not necessary as the study analyzed only publicly available articles.

Eligibility criteria

Systematic reviews were included if they analyzed primary data from patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 as confirmed by RT-PCR or another pre-specified diagnostic technique. Eligible reviews covered all topics related to COVID-19 including, but not limited to, those that reported clinical symptoms, diagnostic methods, therapeutic interventions, laboratory findings, or radiological results. Both full manuscripts and abbreviated versions, such as letters, were eligible.

No restrictions were imposed on the design of the primary studies included within the systematic reviews, the last search date, whether the review included meta-analyses or language. Reviews related to SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses were eligible, but from those reviews, we analyzed only data related to SARS-CoV-2.

No consensus definition exists for a systematic review [ 20 ], and debates continue about the defining characteristics of a systematic review [ 21 ]. Cochrane’s guidance for overviews of reviews recommends setting pre-established criteria for making decisions around inclusion [ 14 ]. That is supported by a recent scoping review about guidance for overviews of systematic reviews [ 22 ].

Thus, for this study, we defined a systematic review as a research report which searched for primary research studies on a specific topic using an explicit search strategy, had a detailed description of the methods with explicit inclusion criteria provided, and provided a summary of the included studies either in narrative or quantitative format (such as a meta-analysis). Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews were considered eligible for inclusion, with or without meta-analysis, and regardless of the study design, language restriction and methodology of the included primary studies. To be eligible for inclusion, reviews had to be clearly analyzing data related to SARS-CoV-2 (associated or not with other viruses). We excluded narrative reviews without those characteristics as these are less likely to be replicable and are more prone to bias.

Scoping reviews and rapid reviews were eligible for inclusion in this overview if they met our pre-defined inclusion criteria noted above. We included reviews that addressed SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses if they reported separate data regarding SARS-CoV-2.

Information sources

Nine databases were searched for eligible records published between December 1, 2019, and March 24, 2020: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Web of Sciences, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature), PDQ-Evidence, WHO’s Global Research on Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), and Epistemonikos.

The comprehensive search strategy for each database is provided in Additional file 1 and was designed and conducted in collaboration with an information specialist. All retrieved records were primarily processed in EndNote, where duplicates were removed, and records were then imported into the Covidence platform [ 23 ]. In addition to database searches, we screened reference lists of reviews included after screening records retrieved via databases.

Study selection

All searches, screening of titles and abstracts, and record selection, were performed independently by two investigators using the Covidence platform [ 23 ]. Articles deemed potentially eligible were retrieved for full-text screening carried out independently by two investigators. Discrepancies at all stages were resolved by consensus. During the screening, records published in languages other than English were translated by a native/fluent speaker.

Data collection process

We custom designed a data extraction table for this study, which was piloted by two authors independently. Data extraction was performed independently by two authors. Conflicts were resolved by consensus or by consulting a third researcher.

We extracted the following data: article identification data (authors’ name and journal of publication), search period, number of databases searched, population or settings considered, main results and outcomes observed, and number of participants. From Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA), we extracted journal rank (quartile) and Journal Impact Factor (JIF).

We categorized the following as primary outcomes: all-cause mortality, need for and length of mechanical ventilation, length of hospitalization (in days), admission to intensive care unit (yes/no), and length of stay in the intensive care unit.

The following outcomes were categorized as exploratory: diagnostic methods used for detection of the virus, male to female ratio, clinical symptoms, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, laboratory findings (full blood count, liver enzymes, C-reactive protein, d-dimer, albumin, lipid profile, serum electrolytes, blood vitamin levels, glucose levels, and any other important biomarkers), and radiological findings (using radiography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasound).

We also collected data on reporting guidelines and requirements for the publication of systematic reviews and meta-analyses from journal websites where included reviews were published.

Quality assessment in individual reviews

Two researchers independently assessed the reviews’ quality using the “A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2)”. We acknowledge that the AMSTAR 2 was created as “a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomized or non-randomized studies of healthcare interventions, or both” [ 24 ]. However, since AMSTAR 2 was designed for systematic reviews of intervention trials, and we included additional types of systematic reviews, we adjusted some AMSTAR 2 ratings and reported these in Additional file 2 .

Adherence to each item was rated as follows: yes, partial yes, no, or not applicable (such as when a meta-analysis was not conducted). The overall confidence in the results of the review is rated as “critically low”, “low”, “moderate” or “high”, according to the AMSTAR 2 guidance based on seven critical domains, which are items 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 as defined by AMSTAR 2 authors [ 24 ]. We reported our adherence ratings for transparency of our decision with accompanying explanations, for each item, in each included review.

One of the included systematic reviews was conducted by some members of this author team [ 25 ]. This review was initially assessed independently by two authors who were not co-authors of that review to prevent the risk of bias in assessing this study.

Synthesis of results

For data synthesis, we prepared a table summarizing each systematic review. Graphs illustrating the mortality rate and clinical symptoms were created. We then prepared a narrative summary of the methods, findings, study strengths, and limitations.

For analysis of the prevalence of clinical outcomes, we extracted data on the number of events and the total number of patients to perform proportional meta-analysis using RStudio© software, with the “meta” package (version 4.9–6), using the “metaprop” function for reviews that did not perform a meta-analysis, excluding case studies because of the absence of variance. For reviews that did not perform a meta-analysis, we presented pooled results of proportions with their respective confidence intervals (95%) by the inverse variance method with a random-effects model, using the DerSimonian-Laird estimator for τ 2 . We adjusted data using Freeman-Tukey double arcosen transformation. Confidence intervals were calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method for individual studies. We created forest plots using the RStudio© software, with the “metafor” package (version 2.1–0) and “forest” function.

Managing overlapping systematic reviews

Some of the included systematic reviews that address the same or similar research questions may include the same primary studies in overviews. Including such overlapping reviews may introduce bias when outcome data from the same primary study are included in the analyses of an overview multiple times. Thus, in summaries of evidence, multiple-counting of the same outcome data will give data from some primary studies too much influence [ 14 ]. In this overview, we did not exclude overlapping systematic reviews because, according to Cochrane’s guidance, it may be appropriate to include all relevant reviews’ results if the purpose of the overview is to present and describe the current body of evidence on a topic [ 14 ]. To avoid any bias in summary estimates associated with overlapping reviews, we generated forest plots showing data from individual systematic reviews, but the results were not pooled because some primary studies were included in multiple reviews.

Our search retrieved 1063 publications, of which 175 were duplicates. Most publications were excluded after the title and abstract analysis ( n = 860). Among the 28 studies selected for full-text screening, 10 were excluded for the reasons described in Additional file 3 , and 18 were included in the final analysis (Fig. 1 ) [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 ]. Reference list screening did not retrieve any additional systematic reviews.

PRISMA flow diagram

Characteristics of included reviews

Summary features of 18 systematic reviews are presented in Table 1 . They were published in 14 different journals. Only four of these journals had specific requirements for systematic reviews (with or without meta-analysis): European Journal of Internal Medicine, Journal of Clinical Medicine, Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Clinical Research in Cardiology . Two journals reported that they published only invited reviews ( Journal of Medical Virology and Clinica Chimica Acta ). Three systematic reviews in our study were published as letters; one was labeled as a scoping review and another as a rapid review (Table 2 ).

All reviews were published in English, in first quartile (Q1) journals, with JIF ranging from 1.692 to 6.062. One review was empty, meaning that its search did not identify any relevant studies; i.e., no primary studies were included [ 36 ]. The remaining 17 reviews included 269 unique studies; the majority ( N = 211; 78%) were included in only a single review included in our study (range: 1 to 12). Primary studies included in the reviews were published between December 2019 and March 18, 2020, and comprised case reports, case series, cohorts, and other observational studies. We found only one review that included randomized clinical trials [ 38 ]. In the included reviews, systematic literature searches were performed from 2019 (entire year) up to March 9, 2020. Ten systematic reviews included meta-analyses. The list of primary studies found in the included systematic reviews is shown in Additional file 4 , as well as the number of reviews in which each primary study was included.

Population and study designs

Most of the reviews analyzed data from patients with COVID-19 who developed pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), or any other correlated complication. One review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of using surgical masks on preventing transmission of the virus [ 36 ], one review was focused on pediatric patients [ 34 ], and one review investigated COVID-19 in pregnant women [ 37 ]. Most reviews assessed clinical symptoms, laboratory findings, or radiological results.

Systematic review findings

The summary of findings from individual reviews is shown in Table 2 . Overall, all-cause mortality ranged from 0.3 to 13.9% (Fig. 2 ).

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of mortality

Clinical symptoms

Seven reviews described the main clinical manifestations of COVID-19 [ 26 , 28 , 29 , 34 , 35 , 39 , 41 ]. Three of them provided only a narrative discussion of symptoms [ 26 , 34 , 35 ]. In the reviews that performed a statistical analysis of the incidence of different clinical symptoms, symptoms in patients with COVID-19 were (range values of point estimates): fever (82–95%), cough with or without sputum (58–72%), dyspnea (26–59%), myalgia or muscle fatigue (29–51%), sore throat (10–13%), headache (8–12%), gastrointestinal disorders, such as diarrhea, nausea or vomiting (5.0–9.0%), and others (including, in one study only: dizziness 12.1%) (Figs. 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 and 9 ). Three reviews assessed cough with and without sputum together; only one review assessed sputum production itself (28.5%).

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of fever

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of cough

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of dyspnea

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of fatigue or myalgia

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of headache

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of gastrointestinal disorders

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of sore throat

Diagnostic aspects

Three reviews described methodologies, protocols, and tools used for establishing the diagnosis of COVID-19 [ 26 , 34 , 38 ]. The use of respiratory swabs (nasal or pharyngeal) or blood specimens to assess the presence of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid using RT-PCR assays was the most commonly used diagnostic method mentioned in the included studies. These diagnostic tests have been widely used, but their precise sensitivity and specificity remain unknown. One review included a Chinese study with clinical diagnosis with no confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection (patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 if they presented with at least two symptoms suggestive of COVID-19, together with laboratory and chest radiography abnormalities) [ 34 ].

Therapeutic possibilities

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions (supportive therapies) used in treating patients with COVID-19 were reported in five reviews [ 25 , 27 , 34 , 35 , 38 ]. Antivirals used empirically for COVID-19 treatment were reported in seven reviews [ 25 , 27 , 34 , 35 , 37 , 38 , 41 ]; most commonly used were protease inhibitors (lopinavir, ritonavir, darunavir), nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (tenofovir), nucleotide analogs (remdesivir, galidesivir, ganciclovir), and neuraminidase inhibitors (oseltamivir). Umifenovir, a membrane fusion inhibitor, was investigated in two studies [ 25 , 35 ]. Possible supportive interventions analyzed were different types of oxygen supplementation and breathing support (invasive or non-invasive ventilation) [ 25 ]. The use of antibiotics, both empirically and to treat secondary pneumonia, was reported in six studies [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 34 , 35 , 38 ]. One review specifically assessed evidence on the efficacy and safety of the anti-malaria drug chloroquine [ 27 ]. It identified 23 ongoing trials investigating the potential of chloroquine as a therapeutic option for COVID-19, but no verifiable clinical outcomes data. The use of mesenchymal stem cells, antifungals, and glucocorticoids were described in four reviews [ 25 , 34 , 35 , 38 ].

Laboratory and radiological findings

Of the 18 reviews included in this overview, eight analyzed laboratory parameters in patients with COVID-19 [ 25 , 29 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 39 ]; elevated C-reactive protein levels, associated with lymphocytopenia, elevated lactate dehydrogenase, as well as slightly elevated aspartate and alanine aminotransferase (AST, ALT) were commonly described in those eight reviews. Lippi et al. assessed cardiac troponin I (cTnI) [ 25 ], procalcitonin [ 32 ], and platelet count [ 33 ] in COVID-19 patients. Elevated levels of procalcitonin [ 32 ] and cTnI [ 30 ] were more likely to be associated with a severe disease course (requiring intensive care unit admission and intubation). Furthermore, thrombocytopenia was frequently observed in patients with complicated COVID-19 infections [ 33 ].

Chest imaging (chest radiography and/or computed tomography) features were assessed in six reviews, all of which described a frequent pattern of local or bilateral multilobar ground-glass opacity [ 25 , 34 , 35 , 39 , 40 , 41 ]. Those six reviews showed that septal thickening, bronchiectasis, pleural and cardiac effusions, halo signs, and pneumothorax were observed in patients suffering from COVID-19.

Quality of evidence in individual systematic reviews

Table 3 shows the detailed results of the quality assessment of 18 systematic reviews, including the assessment of individual items and summary assessment. A detailed explanation for each decision in each review is available in Additional file 5 .

Using AMSTAR 2 criteria, confidence in the results of all 18 reviews was rated as “critically low” (Table 3 ). Common methodological drawbacks were: omission of prospective protocol submission or publication; use of inappropriate search strategy: lack of independent and dual literature screening and data-extraction (or methodology unclear); absence of an explanation for heterogeneity among the studies included; lack of reasons for study exclusion (or rationale unclear).

Risk of bias assessment, based on a reported methodological tool, and quality of evidence appraisal, in line with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method, were reported only in one review [ 25 ]. Five reviews presented a table summarizing bias, using various risk of bias tools [ 25 , 29 , 39 , 40 , 41 ]. One review analyzed “study quality” [ 37 ]. One review mentioned the risk of bias assessment in the methodology but did not provide any related analysis [ 28 ].

This overview of systematic reviews analyzed the first 18 systematic reviews published after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, up to March 24, 2020, with primary studies involving more than 60,000 patients. Using AMSTAR-2, we judged that our confidence in all those reviews was “critically low”. Ten reviews included meta-analyses. The reviews presented data on clinical manifestations, laboratory and radiological findings, and interventions. We found no systematic reviews on the utility of diagnostic tests.

Symptoms were reported in seven reviews; most of the patients had a fever, cough, dyspnea, myalgia or muscle fatigue, and gastrointestinal disorders such as diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. Olfactory dysfunction (anosmia or dysosmia) has been described in patients infected with COVID-19 [ 43 ]; however, this was not reported in any of the reviews included in this overview. During the SARS outbreak in 2002, there were reports of impairment of the sense of smell associated with the disease [ 44 , 45 ].

The reported mortality rates ranged from 0.3 to 14% in the included reviews. Mortality estimates are influenced by the transmissibility rate (basic reproduction number), availability of diagnostic tools, notification policies, asymptomatic presentations of the disease, resources for disease prevention and control, and treatment facilities; variability in the mortality rate fits the pattern of emerging infectious diseases [ 46 ]. Furthermore, the reported cases did not consider asymptomatic cases, mild cases where individuals have not sought medical treatment, and the fact that many countries had limited access to diagnostic tests or have implemented testing policies later than the others. Considering the lack of reviews assessing diagnostic testing (sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of RT-PCT or immunoglobulin tests), and the preponderance of studies that assessed only symptomatic individuals, considerable imprecision around the calculated mortality rates existed in the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Few reviews included treatment data. Those reviews described studies considered to be at a very low level of evidence: usually small, retrospective studies with very heterogeneous populations. Seven reviews analyzed laboratory parameters; those reviews could have been useful for clinicians who attend patients suspected of COVID-19 in emergency services worldwide, such as assessing which patients need to be reassessed more frequently.

All systematic reviews scored poorly on the AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews. Most of the original studies included in the reviews were case series and case reports, impacting the quality of evidence. Such evidence has major implications for clinical practice and the use of these reviews in evidence-based practice and policy. Clinicians, patients, and policymakers can only have the highest confidence in systematic review findings if high-quality systematic review methodologies are employed. The urgent need for information during a pandemic does not justify poor quality reporting.

We acknowledge that there are numerous challenges associated with analyzing COVID-19 data during a pandemic [ 47 ]. High-quality evidence syntheses are needed for decision-making, but each type of evidence syntheses is associated with its inherent challenges.

The creation of classic systematic reviews requires considerable time and effort; with massive research output, they quickly become outdated, and preparing updated versions also requires considerable time. A recent study showed that updates of non-Cochrane systematic reviews are published a median of 5 years after the publication of the previous version [ 48 ].

Authors may register a review and then abandon it [ 49 ], but the existence of a public record that is not updated may lead other authors to believe that the review is still ongoing. A quarter of Cochrane review protocols remains unpublished as completed systematic reviews 8 years after protocol publication [ 50 ].

Rapid reviews can be used to summarize the evidence, but they involve methodological sacrifices and simplifications to produce information promptly, with inconsistent methodological approaches [ 51 ]. However, rapid reviews are justified in times of public health emergencies, and even Cochrane has resorted to publishing rapid reviews in response to the COVID-19 crisis [ 52 ]. Rapid reviews were eligible for inclusion in this overview, but only one of the 18 reviews included in this study was labeled as a rapid review.

Ideally, COVID-19 evidence would be continually summarized in a series of high-quality living systematic reviews, types of evidence synthesis defined as “ a systematic review which is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available ” [ 53 ]. However, conducting living systematic reviews requires considerable resources, calling into question the sustainability of such evidence synthesis over long periods [ 54 ].

Research reports about COVID-19 will contribute to research waste if they are poorly designed, poorly reported, or simply not necessary. In principle, systematic reviews should help reduce research waste as they usually provide recommendations for further research that is needed or may advise that sufficient evidence exists on a particular topic [ 55 ]. However, systematic reviews can also contribute to growing research waste when they are not needed, or poorly conducted and reported. Our present study clearly shows that most of the systematic reviews that were published early on in the COVID-19 pandemic could be categorized as research waste, as our confidence in their results is critically low.

Our study has some limitations. One is that for AMSTAR 2 assessment we relied on information available in publications; we did not attempt to contact study authors for clarifications or additional data. In three reviews, the methodological quality appraisal was challenging because they were published as letters, or labeled as rapid communications. As a result, various details about their review process were not included, leading to AMSTAR 2 questions being answered as “not reported”, resulting in low confidence scores. Full manuscripts might have provided additional information that could have led to higher confidence in the results. In other words, low scores could reflect incomplete reporting, not necessarily low-quality review methods. To make their review available more rapidly and more concisely, the authors may have omitted methodological details. A general issue during a crisis is that speed and completeness must be balanced. However, maintaining high standards requires proper resourcing and commitment to ensure that the users of systematic reviews can have high confidence in the results.

Furthermore, we used adjusted AMSTAR 2 scoring, as the tool was designed for critical appraisal of reviews of interventions. Some reviews may have received lower scores than actually warranted in spite of these adjustments.

Another limitation of our study may be the inclusion of multiple overlapping reviews, as some included reviews included the same primary studies. According to the Cochrane Handbook, including overlapping reviews may be appropriate when the review’s aim is “ to present and describe the current body of systematic review evidence on a topic ” [ 12 ], which was our aim. To avoid bias with summarizing evidence from overlapping reviews, we presented the forest plots without summary estimates. The forest plots serve to inform readers about the effect sizes for outcomes that were reported in each review.

Several authors from this study have contributed to one of the reviews identified [ 25 ]. To reduce the risk of any bias, two authors who did not co-author the review in question initially assessed its quality and limitations.

Finally, we note that the systematic reviews included in our overview may have had issues that our analysis did not identify because we did not analyze their primary studies to verify the accuracy of the data and information they presented. We give two examples to substantiate this possibility. Lovato et al. wrote a commentary on the review of Sun et al. [ 41 ], in which they criticized the authors’ conclusion that sore throat is rare in COVID-19 patients [ 56 ]. Lovato et al. highlighted that multiple studies included in Sun et al. did not accurately describe participants’ clinical presentations, warning that only three studies clearly reported data on sore throat [ 56 ].

In another example, Leung [ 57 ] warned about the review of Li, L.Q. et al. [ 29 ]: “ it is possible that this statistic was computed using overlapped samples, therefore some patients were double counted ”. Li et al. responded to Leung that it is uncertain whether the data overlapped, as they used data from published articles and did not have access to the original data; they also reported that they requested original data and that they plan to re-do their analyses once they receive them; they also urged readers to treat the data with caution [ 58 ]. This points to the evolving nature of evidence during a crisis.

Our study’s strength is that this overview adds to the current knowledge by providing a comprehensive summary of all the evidence synthesis about COVID-19 available early after the onset of the pandemic. This overview followed strict methodological criteria, including a comprehensive and sensitive search strategy and a standard tool for methodological appraisal of systematic reviews.

In conclusion, in this overview of systematic reviews, we analyzed evidence from the first 18 systematic reviews that were published after the emergence of COVID-19. However, confidence in the results of all the reviews was “critically low”. Thus, systematic reviews that were published early on in the pandemic could be categorized as research waste. Even during public health emergencies, studies and systematic reviews should adhere to established methodological standards to provide patients, clinicians, and decision-makers trustworthy evidence.

Availability of data and materials

All data collected and analyzed within this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

World Health Organization. Timeline - COVID-19: Available at: https://www.who.int/news/item/29-06-2020-covidtimeline . Accessed 1 June 2021.

COVID-19 Dashboard by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU). Available at: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html . Accessed 1 June 2021.

Anzai A, Kobayashi T, Linton NM, Kinoshita R, Hayashi K, Suzuki A, et al. Assessing the Impact of Reduced Travel on Exportation Dynamics of Novel Coronavirus Infection (COVID-19). J Clin Med. 2020;9(2):601.

Chinazzi M, Davis JT, Ajelli M, Gioannini C, Litvinova M, Merler S, et al. The effect of travel restrictions on the spread of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. Science. 2020;368(6489):395–400. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba9757 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Fidahic M, Nujic D, Runjic R, Civljak M, Markotic F, Lovric Makaric Z, et al. Research methodology and characteristics of journal articles with original data, preprint articles and registered clinical trial protocols about COVID-19. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):161. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01047-2 .

EPPI Centre . COVID-19: a living systematic map of the evidence. Available at: http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Projects/DepartmentofHealthandSocialCare/Publishedreviews/COVID-19Livingsystematicmapoftheevidence/tabid/3765/Default.aspx . Accessed 1 June 2021.

NCBI SARS-CoV-2 Resources. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sars-cov-2/ . Accessed 1 June 2021.

Gustot T. Quality and reproducibility during the COVID-19 pandemic. JHEP Rep. 2020;2(4):100141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhepr.2020.100141 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kodvanj, I., et al., Publishing of COVID-19 Preprints in Peer-reviewed Journals, Preprinting Trends, Public Discussion and Quality Issues. Preprint article. bioRxiv 2020.11.23.394577; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.23.394577 .

Dobler CC. Poor quality research and clinical practice during COVID-19. Breathe (Sheff). 2020;16(2):200112. https://doi.org/10.1183/20734735.0112-2020 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7(9):e1000326. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326 .

Lunny C, Brennan SE, McDonald S, McKenzie JE. Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 1-purpose, eligibility, search and data extraction. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):231. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0617-1 .

Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Becker LA, Pieper D, Hartling L. Chapter V: Overviews of Reviews. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane. 2020. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook .

Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane. 2020; Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook .

Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Newton AS, Scott SD, Hartling L. The impact of different inclusion decisions on the comprehensiveness and complexity of overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0914-3 .

Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Newton AS, Scott SD, Hartling L. A decision tool to help researchers make decisions about including systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0768-8 .

Hunt H, Pollock A, Campbell P, Estcourt L, Brunton G. An introduction to overviews of reviews: planning a relevant research question and objective for an overview. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0695-8 .

Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Pieper D, Tricco AC, Gates M, Gates A, et al. Preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews (PRIOR): a protocol for development of a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):335. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1252-9 .

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Open Med. 2009;3(3):e123–30.

Krnic Martinic M, Pieper D, Glatt A, Puljak L. Definition of a systematic review used in overviews of systematic reviews, meta-epidemiological studies and textbooks. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):203. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0855-0 .

Puljak L. If there is only one author or only one database was searched, a study should not be called a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;91:4–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.002 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Gates M, Gates A, Guitard S, Pollock M, Hartling L. Guidance for overviews of reviews continues to accumulate, but important challenges remain: a scoping review. Syst Rev. 2020;9(1):254. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01509-0 .

Covidence - systematic review software. Available at: https://www.covidence.org/ . Accessed 1 June 2021.

Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008.

Borges do Nascimento IJ, et al. Novel Coronavirus Infection (COVID-19) in Humans: A Scoping Review and Meta-Analysis. J Clin Med. 2020;9(4):941.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Adhikari SP, Meng S, Wu YJ, Mao YP, Ye RX, Wang QZ, et al. Epidemiology, causes, clinical manifestation and diagnosis, prevention and control of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) during the early outbreak period: a scoping review. Infect Dis Poverty. 2020;9(1):29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40249-020-00646-x .

Cortegiani A, Ingoglia G, Ippolito M, Giarratano A, Einav S. A systematic review on the efficacy and safety of chloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19. J Crit Care. 2020;57:279–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.03.005 .

Li B, Yang J, Zhao F, Zhi L, Wang X, Liu L, et al. Prevalence and impact of cardiovascular metabolic diseases on COVID-19 in China. Clin Res Cardiol. 2020;109(5):531–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-020-01626-9 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Li LQ, Huang T, Wang YQ, Wang ZP, Liang Y, Huang TB, et al. COVID-19 patients’ clinical characteristics, discharge rate, and fatality rate of meta-analysis. J Med Virol. 2020;92(6):577–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25757 .

Lippi G, Lavie CJ, Sanchis-Gomar F. Cardiac troponin I in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): evidence from a meta-analysis. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2020;63(3):390–1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcad.2020.03.001 .

Lippi G, Henry BM. Active smoking is not associated with severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Eur J Intern Med. 2020;75:107–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2020.03.014 .

Lippi G, Plebani M. Procalcitonin in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a meta-analysis. Clin Chim Acta. 2020;505:190–1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2020.03.004 .

Lippi G, Plebani M, Henry BM. Thrombocytopenia is associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections: a meta-analysis. Clin Chim Acta. 2020;506:145–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2020.03.022 .

Ludvigsson JF. Systematic review of COVID-19 in children shows milder cases and a better prognosis than adults. Acta Paediatr. 2020;109(6):1088–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.15270 .

Lupia T, Scabini S, Mornese Pinna S, di Perri G, de Rosa FG, Corcione S. 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak: a new challenge. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2020;21:22–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgar.2020.02.021 .

Marasinghe, K.M., A systematic review investigating the effectiveness of face mask use in limiting the spread of COVID-19 among medically not diagnosed individuals: shedding light on current recommendations provided to individuals not medically diagnosed with COVID-19. Research Square. Preprint article. doi : https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-16701/v1 . 2020 .

Mullins E, Evans D, Viner RM, O’Brien P, Morris E. Coronavirus in pregnancy and delivery: rapid review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020;55(5):586–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.22014 .

Pang J, Wang MX, Ang IYH, Tan SHX, Lewis RF, Chen JIP, et al. Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV): a systematic review. J Clin Med. 2020;9(3):623.

Rodriguez-Morales AJ, Cardona-Ospina JA, Gutiérrez-Ocampo E, Villamizar-Peña R, Holguin-Rivera Y, Escalera-Antezana JP, et al. Clinical, laboratory and imaging features of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2020;34:101623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101623 .

Salehi S, Abedi A, Balakrishnan S, Gholamrezanezhad A. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review of imaging findings in 919 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020;215(1):87–93. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.20.23034 .

Sun P, Qie S, Liu Z, Ren J, Li K, Xi J. Clinical characteristics of hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a single arm meta-analysis. J Med Virol. 2020;92(6):612–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25735 .

Yang J, Zheng Y, Gou X, Pu K, Chen Z, Guo Q, et al. Prevalence of comorbidities and its effects in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Infect Dis. 2020;94:91–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.03.017 .

Bassetti M, Vena A, Giacobbe DR. The novel Chinese coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infections: challenges for fighting the storm. Eur J Clin Investig. 2020;50(3):e13209. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13209 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Hwang CS. Olfactory neuropathy in severe acute respiratory syndrome: report of a case. Acta Neurol Taiwanica. 2006;15(1):26–8.

Google Scholar  

Suzuki M, Saito K, Min WP, Vladau C, Toida K, Itoh H, et al. Identification of viruses in patients with postviral olfactory dysfunction. Laryngoscope. 2007;117(2):272–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlg.0000249922.37381.1e .

Rajgor DD, Lee MH, Archuleta S, Bagdasarian N, Quek SC. The many estimates of the COVID-19 case fatality rate. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020;20(7):776–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30244-9 .

Wolkewitz M, Puljak L. Methodological challenges of analysing COVID-19 data during the pandemic. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):81. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-00972-6 .

Rombey T, Lochner V, Puljak L, Könsgen N, Mathes T, Pieper D. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of non-Cochrane updates of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study. Res Synth Methods. 2020;11(3):471–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1409 .

Runjic E, Rombey T, Pieper D, Puljak L. Half of systematic reviews about pain registered in PROSPERO were not published and the majority had inaccurate status. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;116:114–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.08.010 .

Runjic E, Behmen D, Pieper D, Mathes T, Tricco AC, Moher D, et al. Following Cochrane review protocols to completion 10 years later: a retrospective cohort study and author survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;111:41–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.006 .

Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, Strifler L, Ghassemi M, Ivory J, et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med. 2015;13(1):224. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6 .

COVID-19 Rapid Reviews: Cochrane’s response so far. Available at: https://training.cochrane.org/resource/covid-19-rapid-reviews-cochrane-response-so-far . Accessed 1 June 2021.

Cochrane. Living systematic reviews. Available at: https://community.cochrane.org/review-production/production-resources/living-systematic-reviews . Accessed 1 June 2021.

Millard T, Synnot A, Elliott J, Green S, McDonald S, Turner T. Feasibility and acceptability of living systematic reviews: results from a mixed-methods evaluation. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):325. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1248-5 .

Babic A, Poklepovic Pericic T, Pieper D, Puljak L. How to decide whether a systematic review is stable and not in need of updating: analysis of Cochrane reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2020;11(6):884–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1451 .

Lovato A, Rossettini G, de Filippis C. Sore throat in COVID-19: comment on “clinical characteristics of hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a single arm meta-analysis”. J Med Virol. 2020;92(7):714–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25815 .

Leung C. Comment on Li et al: COVID-19 patients’ clinical characteristics, discharge rate, and fatality rate of meta-analysis. J Med Virol. 2020;92(9):1431–2. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25912 .

Li LQ, Huang T, Wang YQ, Wang ZP, Liang Y, Huang TB, et al. Response to Char’s comment: comment on Li et al: COVID-19 patients’ clinical characteristics, discharge rate, and fatality rate of meta-analysis. J Med Virol. 2020;92(9):1433. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25924 .

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Catherine Henderson DPhil from Swanscoe Communications for pro bono medical writing and editing support. We acknowledge support from the Covidence Team, specifically Anneliese Arno. We thank the whole International Network of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (InterNetCOVID-19) for their commitment and involvement. Members of the InterNetCOVID-19 are listed in Additional file 6 . We thank Pavel Cerny and Roger Crosthwaite for guiding the team supervisor (IJBN) on human resources management.

This research received no external funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University Hospital and School of Medicine, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil

Israel Júnior Borges do Nascimento & Milena Soriano Marcolino

Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA

Israel Júnior Borges do Nascimento

Helene Fuld Health Trust National Institute for Evidence-based Practice in Nursing and Healthcare, College of Nursing, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

Dónal P. O’Mathúna

School of Nursing, Psychotherapy and Community Health, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University of Münster, Münster, Germany

Thilo Caspar von Groote

Department of Sport and Health Science, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

Hebatullah Mohamed Abdulazeem

School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medicine, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia

Ishanka Weerasekara

Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka

Cochrane Croatia, University of Split, School of Medicine, Split, Croatia

Ana Marusic, Irena Zakarija-Grkovic & Tina Poklepovic Pericic

Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and Health Care, Catholic University of Croatia, Ilica 242, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia

Livia Puljak

Cochrane Brazil, Evidence-Based Health Program, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

Vinicius Tassoni Civile & Alvaro Nagib Atallah

Yorkville University, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada

Santino Filoso

Laboratory for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (LIAM), Department of Mathematics and Statistics, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Nicola Luigi Bragazzi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

IJBN conceived the research idea and worked as a project coordinator. DPOM, TCVG, HMA, IW, AM, LP, VTC, IZG, TPP, ANA, SF, NLB and MSM were involved in data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, and initial draft writing. All authors revised the manuscript critically for the content. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Livia Puljak .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not required as data was based on published studies.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: appendix 1..

Search strategies used in the study.

Additional file 2: Appendix 2.

Adjusted scoring of AMSTAR 2 used in this study for systematic reviews of studies that did not analyze interventions.

Additional file 3: Appendix 3.

List of excluded studies, with reasons.

Additional file 4: Appendix 4.

Table of overlapping studies, containing the list of primary studies included, their visual overlap in individual systematic reviews, and the number in how many reviews each primary study was included.

Additional file 5: Appendix 5.

A detailed explanation of AMSTAR scoring for each item in each review.

Additional file 6: Appendix 6.

List of members and affiliates of International Network of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (InterNetCOVID-19).

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Borges do Nascimento, I.J., O’Mathúna, D.P., von Groote, T.C. et al. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic: an overview of systematic reviews. BMC Infect Dis 21 , 525 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-06214-4

Download citation

Received : 12 April 2020

Accepted : 19 May 2021

Published : 04 June 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-06214-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Coronavirus
• Evidence-based medicine
• Infectious diseases

BMC Infectious Diseases

ISSN: 1471-2334

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Students’ Essays on Infectious Disease Prevention, COVID-19 Published Nationwide

As part of the BIO 173: Global Change and Infectious Disease course, Professor Fred Cohan assigns students to write an essay persuading others to prevent future and mitigate present infectious diseases. If students submit their essay to a news outlet—and it’s published—Cohan awards them with extra credit.

As a result of this assignment, more than 25 students have had their work published in newspapers across the United States. Many of these essays cite and applaud the University’s Keep Wes Safe campaign and its COVID-19 testing protocols.

Cohan, professor of biology and Huffington Foundation Professor in the College of the Environment (COE), began teaching the Global Change and Infectious Disease course in 2009, when the COE was established. “I wanted very much to contribute a course to what I saw as a real game-changer in Wesleyan’s interest in the environment. The course is about all the ways that human demands on the environment have brought us infectious diseases, over past millennia and in the present, and why our environmental disturbances will continue to bring us infections into the future.”

Over the years, Cohan learned that he can sustainably teach about 170 students every year without running out of interested students. This fall, he had 207. Although he didn’t change the overall structure of his course to accommodate COVID-19 topics, he did add material on the current pandemic to various sections of the course.

“I wouldn’t say that the population of the class increased tremendously as a result of COVID-19, but I think the enthusiasm of the students for the material has increased substantially,” he said.

To accommodate online learning, Cohan shaved off 15 minutes from his normal 80-minute lectures to allow for discussion sections, led by Cohan and teaching assistants. “While the lectures mostly dealt with biology, the discussions focused on how changes in behavior and policy can solve the infectious disease problems brought by human disturbance of the environment,” he said.

Based on student responses to an introspective exam question, Cohan learned that many students enjoyed a new hope that we could each contribute to fighting infectious disease. “They discovered that the solution to infectious disease is not entirely a waiting game for the right technologies to come along,” he said. “Many enjoyed learning about fighting infectious disease from a moral and social perspective. And especially, the students enjoyed learning about the ‘socialism of the microbe,’ how preventing and curing others’ infections will prevent others’ infections from becoming our own. The students enjoyed seeing how this idea can drive both domestic and international health policies.”

A sampling of the published student essays are below:

Alexander Giummo ’22 and Mike Dunderdale’s ’23  op-ed titled “ A National Testing Proposal: Let’s Fight Back Against COVID-19 ” was published in the Journal Inquirer in Manchester, Conn.

They wrote: “With an expansive and increased testing plan for U.S. citizens, those who are COVID-positive could limit the number of contacts they have, and this would also help to enable more effective contact tracing. Testing could also allow for the return of some ‘normal’ events, such as small social gatherings, sports, and in-person class and work schedules.

“We propose a national testing strategy in line with the one that has kept Wesleyan students safe this year. The plan would require a strong push by the federal government to fund the initiative, but it is vital to successful containment of the virus.

“Twice a week, all people living in the U.S. should report to a local testing site staffed with professionals where the anterior nasal swab Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test, used by Wesleyan and supported by the Broad Institute, would be implemented.”

Kalyani Mohan ’22 and Kalli Jackson ’22 penned an essay titled “ Where Public Health Meets Politics: COVID-19 in the United States ,” which was published in Wesleyan’s Arcadia Political Review .

They wrote: “While the U.S. would certainly benefit from a strengthened pandemic response team and structural changes to public health systems, that alone isn’t enough, as American society is immensely stratified, socially and culturally. The politicization of the COVID-19 pandemic shows that individualism, libertarianism and capitalism are deeply ingrained in American culture, to the extent that Americans often blind to the fact community welfare can be equivalent to personal welfare. Pandemics are multifaceted, and preventing them requires not just a cultural shift but an emotional one amongst the American people, one guided by empathy—towards other people, different communities and the planet. Politics should be a tool, not a weapon against its people.”

Sydnee Goyer ’21 and Marcel Thompson’s ’22  essay “ This Flu Season Will Be Decisive in the Fight Against COVID-19 ” also was published in Arcadia Political Review .

“With winter approaching all around the Northern Hemisphere, people are preparing for what has already been named a “twindemic,” meaning the joint threat of the coronavirus and the seasonal flu,” they wrote. “While it is known that seasonal vaccinations reduce the risk of getting the flu by up to 60% and also reduce the severity of the illness after the contamination, additional research has been conducted in order to know whether or not flu shots could reduce the risk of people getting COVID-19. In addition to the flu shot, it is essential that people remain vigilant in maintaining proper social distancing, washing your hands thoroughly, and continuing to wear masks in public spaces.”

An op-ed titled “ The Pandemic Has Shown Us How Workplace Culture Needs to Change ,” written by Adam Hickey ’22 and George Fuss ’21, was published in Park City, Utah’s The Park Record .

They wrote: “One review of academic surveys (most of which were conducted in the United States) conducted in 2019 found that between 35% and 97% of respondents in those surveys reported having attended work while they were ill, often because of workplace culture or policy which generated pressure to do so. Choosing to ignore sickness and return to the workplace while one is ill puts colleagues at risk, regardless of the perceived severity of your own illness; COVID-19 is an overbearing reminder that a disease that may cause mild, even cold-like symptoms for some can still carry fatal consequences for others.

“A mandatory paid sick leave policy for every worker, ideally across the globe, would allow essential workers to return to work when necessary while still providing enough wiggle room for economically impoverished employees to take time off without going broke if they believe they’ve contracted an illness so as not to infect the rest of their workplace and the public at large.”

Women’s cross country team members and classmates Jane Hollander ’23 and Sara Greene ’23 wrote a sports-themed essay titled “ This Season, High School Winter Sports Aren’t Worth the Risk ,” which was published in Tap into Scotch Plains/Fanwood , based in Scotch Plains, N.J. Their essay focused on the risks high school sports pose on student-athletes, their families, and the greater community.

“We don’t propose cutting off sports entirely— rather, we need to be realistic about the levels at which athletes should be participating. There are ways to make practices safer,” they wrote. “At [Wesleyan], we began the season in ‘cohorts,’ so the amount of people exposed to one another would be smaller. For non-contact sports, social distancing can be easily implemented, and for others, teams can focus on drills, strength and conditioning workouts, and skill-building exercises. Racing sports such as swim and track can compete virtually, comparing times with other schools, and team sports can focus their competition on intra-team scrimmages. These changes can allow for the continuation of a sense of normalcy and team camaraderie without the exposure to students from different geographic areas in confined, indoor spaces.”

Brook Guiffre ’23 and Maddie Clarke’s ’22  op-ed titled “ On the Pandemic ” was published in Hometown Weekly,  based in Medfield, Mass.

“The first case of COVID-19 in the United States was recorded on January 20th, 2020. For the next month and a half, the U.S. continued operating normally, while many other countries began their lockdown,” they wrote. “One month later, on February 29th, 2020, the federal government approved a national testing program, but it was too little too late. The U.S. was already in pandemic mode, and completely unprepared. Frontline workers lacked access to N-95 masks, infected patients struggled to get tested, and national leaders informed the public that COVID-19 was nothing more than the common flu. Ultimately, this unpreparedness led to thousands of avoidable deaths and long-term changes to daily life. With the risk of novel infectious diseases emerging in the future being high, it is imperative that the U.S. learn from its failure and better prepare for future pandemics now. By strengthening our public health response and re-establishing government organizations specialized in disease control, we have the ability to prevent more years spent masked and six feet apart.”

In addition, their other essay, “ On Mass Extinction ,” was also published by Hometown Weekly .

“The sixth mass extinction—which scientists have coined as the Holocene Extinction—is upon us. According to the United Nations, around one million plant and animal species are currently in danger of extinction, and many more within the next decade. While other extinctions have occurred in Earth’s history, none have occurred at such a rapid rate,” they wrote. “For the sake of both biodiversity and infectious diseases, it is in our best interest to stop pushing this Holocene Extinction further.”

An essay titled “ Learning from Our Mistakes: How to Protect Ourselves and Our Communities from Diseases ,” written by Nicole Veru ’21 and Zoe Darmon ’21, was published in My Hometown Bronxville, based in Bronxville, N.Y.

“We can protect ourselves and others from future infectious diseases by ensuring that we are vaccinated,” they wrote. “Vaccines have high levels of success if enough people get them. Due to vaccines, society is no longer ravaged by childhood diseases such as mumps, rubella, measles, and smallpox. We have been able to eradicate diseases through vaccines; smallpox, one of the world’s most consequential diseases, was eradicated from the world in the 1970s.

“In 2000, the U.S. was nearly free of measles, yet, due to hesitations by anti-vaxxers, there continues to be cases. From 2000–2015 there were over 18 measles outbreaks in the U.S. This is because unless a disease is completely eradicated, there will be a new generation susceptible.

“Although vaccines are not 100% effective at preventing infection, if we continue to get vaccinated, we protect ourselves and those around us. If enough people are vaccinated, societies can develop herd immunity. The amount of people vaccinated to obtain herd immunity depends on the disease, but if this fraction is obtained, the spread of disease is contained. Through herd immunity, we protect those who may not be able to get vaccinated, such as people who are immunocompromised and the tiny portion of people for whom the vaccine is not effective.”

Dhruvi Rana ’22 and Bryce Gillis ’22 co-authored an op-ed titled “ We Must Educate Those Who Remain Skeptical of the Dangers of COVID-19 ,” which was published in Rhode Island Central .

“As Rhode Island enters the winter season, temperatures are beginning to drop and many studies have demonstrated that colder weather and lower humidity are correlated with higher transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19,” they wrote. “By simply talking or breathing, we release respiratory droplets and aerosols (tiny fluid particles which could carry the coronavirus pathogen), which can remain in the air for minutes to hours.

“In order to establish herd immunity in the US, we must educate those who remain skeptical of the dangers of COVID-19.  Whether community-driven or state-funded, educational campaigns are needed to ensure that everyone fully comprehends how severe COVID-19 is and the significance of airborne transmission. While we await a vaccine, it is necessary now more than ever that we social distance, avoid crowds, and wear masks, given that colder temperatures will likely yield increased transmission of the virus.”

Danielle Rinaldi ’21 and Verónica Matos Socorro ’21 published their op-ed titled “ Community Forum: How Mask-Wearing Demands a Cultural Reset ” in the Ewing Observer , based in Lawrence, N.J.

“In their own attempt to change personal behavior during the pandemic, Wesleyan University has mandated mask-wearing in almost every facet of campus life,” they wrote. “As members of our community, we must recognize that mask-wearing is something we are all responsible and accountable for, not only because it is a form of protection for us, but just as important for others as well. However, it seems as though both Covid fatigue and complacency are dominating the mindsets of Americans, leading to even more unwillingness to mask up. Ultimately, it is inevitable that this pandemic will not be the last in our lifespan due to global warming creating irreversible losses in biodiversity. As a result, it is imperative that we adopt the norm of mask-wearing now and undergo a culture shift of the abandonment of an individualistic mindset, and instead, create a society that prioritizes taking care of others for the benefit of all.”

Shayna Dollinger ’22 and Hayley Lipson ’21  wrote an essay titled “ My Pandemic Year in College Has Brought Pride and Purpose. ” Dollinger submitted the piece, rewritten in first person, to Jewish News of Northern California . Read more about Dollinger’s publication in this News @ Wesleyan article .

“I lay in the dead grass, a 6-by-6-foot square all to myself. I cheer for my best friend, who is on the stage constructed at the bottom of Foss hill, dancing with her Bollywood dance group. Masks cover their ordinarily smiling faces as their bodies move in sync. Looking around at friends and classmates, each in their own 6-by-6 world, I feel an overwhelming sense of normalcy.

“One of the ways in which Wesleyan has prevented outbreaks on campus is by holding safe, socially distanced events that students want to attend. By giving us places to be and things to do on the weekends, we are discouraged from breaking rules and causing outbreaks at ‘super-spreader’ events.”

An op-ed written by Luna Mac-Williams ’22 and Daëlle Coriolan ’24 titled “ Collectivist Practices to Combat COVID-19 ” was published in the Wesleyan Argus .

“We are embroiled in a global pandemic that disproportionately affects poor communities of color, and in the midst of a higher cultural consciousness of systemic inequities,” they wrote. “A cultural shift to center collectivist thought and action not only would prove helpful in disease prevention, but also belongs in conversation with the Black Lives Matter movement. Collectivist models of thinking effectively target the needs of vulnerable populations including the sick, the disenfranchised, the systematically marginalized. Collectivist systems provide care, decentering the capitalist, individualist system, and focusing on how communities can work to be self-sufficient and uplift our own neighbors.”

An essay written by Maria Noto ’21 , titled “ U.S. Individualism Has Deadly Consequences ,” is published in the Oneonta Daily Star , based in Oneonta, N.Y.

She wrote, “When analyzing the cultures of certain East Asian countries, several differences stand out. For instance, when people are sick and during the cold and flu season, many East Asian cultures, including South Korea, use mask-wearing. What is considered a threat to freedom by some Americans is a preventive action and community obligation in this example. This, along with many other cultural differences, is insightful in understanding their ability to contain the virus.

“These differences are deeply seeded in the values of a culture. However, there is hope for the U.S. and other individualistic cultures in recognizing and adopting these community-centered approaches. Our mindset needs to be revolutionized with the help of federal and local assistance: mandating masks, passing another stimulus package, contact tracing, etc… However, these measures will be unsuccessful unless everyone participates for the good of a community.”

A published op-ed by Madison Szabo ’23 , Caitlyn Ferrante ’23 ran in the Two Rivers Times . The piece is titled “ Anxiety and Aspiration: Analyzing the Politicization of the Pandemic .”

John Lee ’21 and Taylor Goodman-Leong ’21 have published their op-ed titled “ Reassessing the media’s approach to COVID-19 ” in Weekly Monday Cafe 24 (Page 2).

An essay by Eleanor Raab ’21 and Elizabeth Nefferdorf ’22 titled “ Preventing the Next Epidemic ” was published in The Almanac .

• Keep Wes Safe
• student publications
• Teaching during the pandemic

Related Articles

At Common Read, Author Asks Class of 2028 to Reimagine Relationships with the Earth

Wesleyan Welcomes New and Visiting Faculty Members

‘Common Moment’ Tradition Connects New Students Across Difference

Previous matesan's new book explores political violence, islamist mobilization in egypt and indonesia, next students launch fun, interactive virtual program for school-aged kids.

• Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
• Biostatistics
• Environmental Health and Engineering
• Epidemiology
• Health Policy and Management
• Health, Behavior and Society
• International Health
• Mental Health
• Molecular Microbiology and Immunology
• Population, Family and Reproductive Health
• Program Finder
• Admissions Services
• Course Directory
• Academic Calendar
• Hybrid Campus
• Lecture Series
• Convocation
• Strategy and Development
• Implementation and Impact
• Integrity and Oversight
• In the School
• In the Field
• In Baltimore
• Resources for Practitioners
• Articles & News Releases
• In The News
• Statements & Announcements
• At a Glance
• Student Life
• Strategic Priorities
• Inclusion, Diversity, Anti-Racism, and Equity (IDARE)
• What is Public Health?

A Top Vaccine Expert Answers Important Questions About a COVID-19 Vaccine

The covid-19 vaccine is on track to become the fastest-developed vaccine in history. that doesn’t mean the process is skipping any critical steps..

Understanding what we know—and still don’t—about a vaccine for COVID-19 can help shed light on its safety and efficacy.

Ruth Karron, MD , is one of the top vaccine experts in the world, serving on vaccine committees for the CDC, the WHO, and the FDA. Karron, who leads the  Center for Immunization Research  at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, recently spoke with  Josh Sharfstein  and answered a list of important questions about the COVID-19 vaccine.

How close are we to a vaccine?

There are some very encouraging developments. We have a few vaccines now that will go into Phase 3 clinical trials, also known as efficacy trials. That means that those vaccines have passed certain goalposts in terms of initial evaluations of safety and immune response such that they can be evaluated in larger trials.

We know that these vaccines are promising, but we don’t yet know if they are going to work. That’s what the purpose of an efficacy trial is—as well as to provide a broader assessment of safety of the vaccine in a large number of people.

Tell me more about these efficacy trials. What do they actually entail?

They involve large numbers of people: In these particular trials for COVID vaccines, there are going to be about 30,000 people enrolled per trial. Individuals are given a vaccine, and then they are followed both to make sure that the side effects from the vaccine are acceptable and to see whether they develop a SARS-CoV-2 infection along with some symptoms.

These are placebo-controlled trials, meaning that some individuals will get a COVID vaccine and some will get a placebo. Then, the rates of disease will be compared in the people who got placebo and the people who got the vaccine to determine the efficacy of the vaccine.

How successful does a vaccine have to be in one of these studies for it to be considered effective?

Recently, the FDA issued guidance about the development of COVID vaccines. The guidance that they issued to vaccine manufacturers— this is a document that is available to the general public —is that a vaccine would need to be at least 50% effective. This means that an individual who was vaccinated would be 50% less likely to get COVID disease—or whatever the particular endpoint is that’s measured in the trial—than individuals that weren’t vaccinated.

This is a reasonable goal for a number of reasons. Typically, the more severe a disease is, the better chance a vaccine has of preventing that disease. So, a vaccine that’s 50% effective against mild COVID disease—which might be the endpoint that’s measured in a clinical trial, or  any  evidence of COVID infection with any symptom, which is how a lot of trials are designed—might be more effective against severe disease. 

When you have a disease that’s as prevalent as COVID—and if we think about what the U.S. has experienced in the past several months in terms of severe disease and death—even if we were only able to cut those numbers in half, that would be a major achievement.

How long would a vaccine be effective for? If you get 50% effectiveness or more, that’s good news. But if it’s only effective for a few months, that’s not such good news. 

Time will tell for that. The short answer is that we don’t yet know. Even for the data we have on the vaccine so far in smaller studies, we haven’t yet had the opportunity to follow individuals for very long. The very first people who got the very first vaccine were immunized in March and it’s only July. So, we don’t know very much about the durability of the immune response in people.

Our hope would be [that protection would last] at least a year or more and then people might need boosters.

It’s also possible that a vaccine might not entirely protect against mild disease. So you might actually experience mild disease and then have a boost in your immune response and not suffer severe disease. From a public health perspective, that would be completely acceptable. If we turned a severe disease not into “ no disease ” but into mild disease, that would be a real victory.

Let’s talk about safety. What are they looking for in a 30,000-person study to figure out whether a vaccine is considered safe enough to use?

Every person who is enrolled in the trial will complete information about the kinds of acute symptoms that you might expect following an infection. People will need to provide information about swelling, redness, tenderness around the injection site, fever, and any other symptoms they might experience in the three to seven days following vaccination.

More long term, people will be looking to make sure that when COVID disease is experienced, there’s not any evidence of more severe disease with vaccination [which is known as disease enhancement]. 

There was a lot of discussion as these vaccines were being developed of a concern about disease enhancement. This is based on some animal models—not with SARS-CoV-2 but with other coronaviruses. We haven’t seen any evidence of enhanced disease thus far and there are a number of scientific reasons why we don’t think it should occur with these vaccines. But, of course, it’s something we would still watch for very carefully just as with any other safety signal.

How should we think about the possibility of adverse effects that might come up after the period of the vaccine trial?

There are a couple of things to mention about that, and one is that individuals with these trials will be followed for a year or longer. It may be that a vaccine is either approved for emergency use or licensed before all of that long-term follow up is completed. Nevertheless, companies will be obligated to complete that follow up and report those results back to the FDA. 

It’s important to enroll older adults in these studies. All of these large efficacy trials will be stratified so there will be some younger adults and some older adults enrolled. 

In addition, it’s very likely—and this would not just happen with COVID vaccines, but whenever the FDA licenses vaccines—that there is an obligation for post-licensure assessments. If a COVID vaccine is licensed, the companies will work with the FDA to determine exactly what kind of post-licensure safety assessments will need to be done.

COVID affects certain populations more than others—particularly older adults and people with chronic illnesses. What do these studies need [in order] to address the question of whether a vaccine will be protective for them?

I also think it will be important to enroll older adults across an age span. A 65-year-old is not the same as an 85-year-old. Also, a healthy older adult is not the same as a frail older adult who might be living in a care facility. 

We’ll need some information about diverse elderly populations in order to think about how to allocate vaccines. There may also be other alternatives for older adults if they don’t respond well to vaccines. There’s a lot of work going on on development of monoclonal antibodies [ learn more about lab-produced antibodies in a recent podcast episode with Arturo Casadevall ] as an alternative for groups that don’t respond well to vaccines such as elderly, frail adults.

Let’s say there are 30,000 patients in the study and only a few hundred who are over 80 years old. What can you learn about a relatively small population of much older adults that would be informative about that group?

We may not have a large enough number of people in that subgroup to directly look at efficacy of a vaccine. But we might have enough to look at the immune response—the antibody response, for example, of a vaccine. 

If, in the course of these trials, we can determine a correlative protection—for example, a laboratory measure like a level of a particular kind of antibody that correlates with protection against COVID disease—we can at least look at the immune responses in that subset of very elderly and decide if they are the same or different than the younger groups’. If they are the same, we may be more comfortable making the leap to say that it’s likely those individuals will also be protected by the vaccine.

So, we will learn more from a vaccine trial than just whether or not a vaccine works. We’re going to find out, perhaps, what predicts whether the vaccine works. That information might help us understand—without having to do a whole new trial—who might be protected by a vaccine.

It’s certainly a hope. 

The majority of vaccines that we use today don’t have such a marker of protection and they’re very effective. Just because we can’t detect a marker doesn’t mean that a vaccine is not effective. It means that we’re not smart enough to figure out what that marker should be. 

We really hope that there will be such a marker of protection because then we can link that—and, in FDA speak, that’s called “bridging”—to another population where we can just look at that marker of immunity rather than doing a whole efficacy trial.

How should we think about the need for racial and ethnic diversity in these clinical trials?

It’s critically important that we have racial and ethnic diversity. 

We know that COVID causes increased rates of severe disease in Latinx and Black populations and in Native American populations. We will certainly want to be able to offer these COVID vaccines to these high-risk populations and encourage their use. But we need to know how well these vaccines work in these populations—if different vaccines work differently—so that we can offer the most effective vaccines. 

It would not be an understatement to say that there can be a measure of distrust from some communities that have experienced discrimination from the health care system. How does that play into vaccine research?

It’s really important to engage those communities in a number of ways. One way is to engage local leaders early in the process. Lay leaders and leaders of faith communities can have focus groups to find out what their concerns are and how those can be allayed. 

I think a very important issue that has been raised by some people who might potentially volunteer for some of these trials has to do with eventual access. People want to have some sense that if they participate in a trial, not only might they have access to the vaccine at the end of that trial, but their families and their communities would, too. Ensuring access among these high risk and vulnerable communities is really critical. 

A clear policy decision to make sure that a vaccine is widely available without charge might actually help with the studies to prove whether or not that vaccine is safe and effective?

That’s absolutely the case. It’s great that you brought up the “without charge” piece, too, because a vaccine that’s made available but costs something to the individual may not be used. Particularly for people who don’t have health insurance or people who are undocumented. It has to be broadly and freely available.

Let’s talk about other specific populations. One of those is pregnant women. We know that they can certainly get COVID-19 and that there are some signs that they can have a more severe course. How do you think about the issue of pregnant women in vaccine studies?

I’ve done some work in this area —particularly with  Ruth Faden  and  Carleigh Krubiner  in the  Berman Institute of Bioethics —specifically related to ensuring that pregnant women are considered and included in vaccine development and implementation for vaccines against epidemic and pandemic diseases. 

When thinking about trials, there needs to be a justification for  excluding  pregnant women from trials rather than a justification for  including  them. The justification often is—and certainly is the case with these early COVID vaccines—that we don’t know enough yet about the vaccine or the vaccine platform or the safety of the vaccine to do a study in pregnant people. 

With the mRNA vaccine, for example, [the type of vaccine being considered for COVID-19] we don’t currently have a licensed mRNA vaccine. It’s a new platform and we’re just learning about the safety of that platform so it wouldn’t have been appropriate to include pregnant women in the early stage trials. 

But these 30,000-person studies are going to be really big studies. They will certainly enroll people of child-bearing potential. And even though there’s what we call an exclusion criterion—women are not supposed to be pregnant at the time they are enrolled, and usually women of child-bearing potential will take a pregnancy test prior to enrollment and immunization—we know from previous experience that it’s quite likely that some women will become pregnant in the months immediately following immunization. It happens quite frequently. So, it’s important for companies and the government to anticipate that this will be the case and to think about how they will systematically collect data from women who do become pregnant during these trials. 

It’s not that the data needs to be interpreted cautiously—because pregnant women aren’t being formally randomized and we don’t have that kind of trial design—but there are things that could be learned and it’s important to think now about how to collect those data. It’s also important to think about how pregnant women could be directly included in both trials and deployment later down the road. 

What about young children who are less likely to get severe disease? Would your approach to clinical trials be different?

Yes. I think we need to learn a bit more about the epidemiology in children. Fortunately, children don’t seem to suffer from acute COVID disease at the rates that adults do. But we need to learn more about that and we also need to learn from our trials in adults before we make decisions about how and whether children will be included in vaccine trials. 

Once we have a vaccine that has made it through these various stages and we’re ready to start immunizing people outside of a pure clinical trial, how close are we to really getting the benefit of the vaccine? How does all the work it takes to develop a vaccine compare to what comes next?

The best vaccine in the world won’t work if it isn’t used. 

Use has two parts to it: One is availability and access, and the other part is acceptance.

We need to think about what kind of infrastructure we should be planning now for what we’re going to need to deliver this vaccine. We’ll set priorities; certainly not everyone is going to get a vaccine all at once. But certainly, over time we will expect that all adults will receive the vaccine and perhaps children. So we’ll need to have systems in place that can deliver the vaccine. At the same time, we need to make sure that the vaccine is acceptable. We need to communicate the importance of vaccination to the public and address their concerns so that we can not only be able to deliver vaccines, but have those be accepted by the public.

So, there’s a lot of work to be done. But this isn’t science fiction: We are really on a path to a vaccine for a brand new infectious disease.

Yes. If you think back to the fact that in January, we barely knew what this virus was, and here we are, seven months later, embarking on efficacy trials, it’s really a remarkable accomplishment. We have a lot to do yet, but in the time that we’re assessing the efficacy of these vaccines and making sure that they can be delivered to the public, people really need to stay safe and to do all the things we’ve been encouraging them to do all along. 

But we are well on our way to developing vaccines not only for people in the U.S., but for people all over the world.

Public Health On Call

This conversation is excerpted from the July 31 episode of Public Health On Call. 

Subscribe to Podcast

Related Content

A ‘Critical Pathogen’: The Rise of Drug-Resistant Fungal Diseases

What to Know About the Updated COVID Vaccine for Fall, Winter 2024–25

Noted Biostatistician and Epidemiologist Jim Tonascia Retires

Why We’re Still Waiting for a Pandemic Treaty

Why COVID Surges in the Summer

• Homework Help
• Essay Examples
• Citation Generator
• Writing Guides
• Essay Title Generator
• Essay Topic Generator
• Essay Outline Generator
• Flashcard Generator
• Plagiarism Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Conclusion Generator
• Thesis Statement Generator
• Introduction Generator
• Literature Review Generator
• Hypothesis Generator
• Human Editing Service
• Essay Hook Generator
• Covid 19 Essays

Covid 19 Essays (Examples)

Filter by keywords:(add comma between each), example essays.

COVID 19 and Healthcare Worker Burnout

Article Review: COVID-19 and the Mental Health Impact Upon Healthcare WorkersAmericans lauded healthcare workers as the nations heroes during the height of the pandemic. But, just like other Americans, healthcare workers too were also personally and intimately affected by the impact of COVID-19. They had to deal with the overwhelming experience of dealing with stress, sickness, and death daily, in a manner which many of them were unprepared for before the crisis. Hall & Powers (2022) remind the reader in their article Addressing the mental health impact of the COVID pandemic on healthcare workers, America is now facing three years of the pandemic, and years of medical misinformation, death, and frustrations with the seemingly endless waves of infection and reinfection.Healthcare workers face greater physical risk from infectious illness, and also a psychological toll from frustration and a sense of helplessness, both when patients pass away, and also resistance to accepting…...

mla References Hall, E.J. & Powers, R. E. (2022, June 23) Addressing the mental health impact of the COVID pandemic on healthcare workers. Newswires.   https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/577854977/addressing-the-mental-health-impact-of-the-covid-pandemic-on-healthcare-workers 

Covid 19 Pandemic Midterm Project

Covid 19 Pandemic Continues To Threaten the Survival of Human Service OrganizationsCovid 19 has impacted the physical, mental, and social lives of human beings from all dimensions. Despite the growing needs of social services firms or community-based organizations (CBOs), they struggle to fulfill those needs (Tsega et al., 2020). They have dwindling resources to meet the requirements of such individuals. Government and funding agencies are also out of techniques and funds to meet the demands of these contracts or the costs of delivering pertinent services.There are three main challenges that CBOs are facing in times of crisis: long-term financial survival, staff availability for being active even on low salaries, and delivery concerns to meet the clients needs (Tsega et al., 2020). Some of the ethical challenges that the social work employees were not aware of or were not prepared for beforehand when Covid struck the world are building a relationship…...

mla References Banks, S., Cai, T., de Jonge, E., Shears, J., Shum, M., Sobocan, A.M., Strom, K., Truell, R., Uriz, M.J. & Weinberg, M. (2020, June 29). Ethical challenges for social workers during Covid 19: A global perspective. The International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW).   https://www.ifsw.org/ethical-challenges-for-social-workers-during-covid-19-a-global-perspective/  Chadi, N., Ryan, N. C., & Geoffroy, M. C. (2022). COVID-19 and the impacts on youth mental health: emerging evidence from longitudinal studies. Les impacts de la pandémie de la COVID-19 sur la santé mentale des jeunes: données émergeantes des études longitudinales. Canadian Journal of Public Health= Revue Canadienne de Sante Publique, 113(1), 44–52.   https://doi.org/10.17269/s41997-021-00567-8  Exner-Cortens, D., Baker, E., Gray, S., Fernandez Conde, C., Rivera, R. R., Van Bavel, M., Vezina, E., Ambrose, A., Pawluk, C., Schwartz, K. D., & Arnold, P. D. (2021). School-based suicide risk assessment using eHealth for youth: Systematic scoping review. JMIR Mental Health, 8(9), e29454.   https://doi.org/10.2196/29454

COVID 19 Pandemic and Interest Rates

COVID-19 Pandemic The coronavirus pandemic is a grave global health threat, significantly disrupting everyday life and the economy in Canada as well as everywhere else across the world. While all Canadian economic sectors have been adversely impacted, a few like the travel, hospitality, service, and energy industry have been especially hit hard. Necessary public health measures are taken for containing virus spread, including the closedown of educational institutions, social distancing, and lockdowns, and emergency states, themselves greatly and adversely affect economic activity. But a key point to note is that though the effect is huge, it will, nevertheless, pass soon. Experts worldwide have adopted major valiant steps to combat the virus and its spread and support individuals as well as organizations through this very tough time (CBC News, 2020). Impact of COVID-19 on Interest Rates The average Canadian interest rate between 1990 and 2020 was 5.86% - it attained an unprecedented high in…...

mla References Bains, J. (2020, June 3). Bank of Canada says COVID-19 impact has peaked, holds interest rate at 0.25 percent. Yahoo Finance - Stock Market Live, Quotes, Business & Finance News.   Bank of Canada. (2020). COVID-19: Actions to support the economy and financial system.  https://www.bankofcanada.ca/markets/market-operations-liquidity-provision/covid-19-actions-support-economy-financial-system/  CBC News. (2020, June 3). Bank of Canada holds rate steady, saying COVID-19 economic impact \\'appears to have peaked\\' | CBC news.  https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bank-of-canada-rate-decision-1.5596399  https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/bank-of-canada-says-covid-19-impact-has-peaked-holds-interest-rate-at-025-per-cent-142812681.html 

COVID 19 Vaccinations

1) What is the name of the article? Where was it published? Who is the author and what are his or her credentials?a. Name: Public health officials are failing to communicate effectively about AstraZenecab. Published: May 12, 2021c. Author: Joel Abramsd. Author Credentials: Manager of Outreach at The Conversation US2) Post a link to the article or the actual article with your assignmenta. https://theconversation.com/public-health-officials-are-failing-to-communicate-effectively-about-astrazeneca-1603403) How did you search for or find it (search words, reading, etc)?I searched for the article using Google. I was particularly interested in vaccinations and their overall impact on society. This was compounded by the exception speed by which the vaccines were approved and administered to the public. Due to the speed and complexity of the virus I was interested in researching aspects that failed with the vaccine rollout and how it was being communicated to the public. I wanted to see how health officials would…...

mla References 1. Abbasi J. COVID-19 and mRNA Vaccines-First Large Test for a New Approach. JAMA. 2020 Sep 3. PubMed:   Full-text: https://pubmed.gov/32880613 . 2. Alter G, Seder R: The Power of Antibody-Based Surveillance. N Engl J Med 2020, published 1 September. Full-text:   https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMe2028079 . 3. Ball P. The lightning-fast quest for COVID vaccines — and what it means for other diseases. Nature 2020, published 18 December. Full-text:   https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03626-1 

Financial Corporates COVID 19 Pandemic

COVID-19 Pandemic on Financial CorporatesA dividend can be defined as the dispersion of some of the companys incomes to a group of eligible shareholders as the firms board of directors determines it. Familiar stakeholders of dividend-paying companies are typically qualified if they possess the merchandiser before the date of ex-dividend. The bonus may be reimbursed out as coinage or as an arrangement of added merchandise. Additionally, fringe benefits are expenditures carried out by publicly recorded businesses as a prize to depositors for depositing their cash into the project. The statements of dividend payouts are usually followed by a proportional rise or fall in a companys stock value. Most companies retain earnings to be invested back into the company rather than paying dividends. Examples of dividends are cash dividends and bonus shares. A cash dividend is a dividend rewarded in cash and will reduce the companys cash reserves.On the other hand,…...

mla Work Cited Allen, Franklin, and Roni Michaely. “Dividend policy.” Handbooks in operations research and management science 9 (1995): 793-837. Barr, Michael S., Howell E. Jackson, and Margaret E. Tahyar. “The Financial Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Available at SSRN 3666461 (2020). Beck, Thorsten. “Finance in the times of coronavirus.” Economics in the Time of COVID-19 73 (2020). Beckman, Jayson, and Amanda M. Countryman. “The Importance of Agriculture in the Economy: Impacts from COVID?19.” American journal of agricultural economics (2021).

Impact of COVID 19 on Pregnant Couples Persuasive Speech

Conquering COVID – A Guide for a Pregnant Couple Persuasive Speech Outline Topic: Conquering COVID – A Guide for a Pregnant Couple 1. Introduction a. Does COVID-19 hit harder when one is pregnant? If a pregnant woman is affected, will the virus damage the baby? b. Many of us have probably seen daily coronavirus updates and are aware of some of the measures we can take to prevent us from contracting the virus. We have received lots of information on wearing masks, social distancing, and hand hygiene practices. We have also heard about some of the measures taken to help one recover/conquer the virus when infected. However, there is little information on the impact of COVID-19 on a pregnant couple and what they can do to conquer the virus during pregnancy. c. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, pregnant women are vulnerable populations that are likely to be hospitalized, risk preterm birth,…...

mla Works Cited Ablow, Jennifer C., and Elinor Sullivan. “Pregnancy during a Pandemic: The Stress of COVID-19 on Pregnant Women and New Mothers Is Showing.” The Conversation, The Conversation Africa, Inc., 29 Sept. 2020,   . Vogel, Gretchen. “New Coronavirus Leaves Pregnant Women with Wrenching Choices-but Little Data to Guide Them.” Science, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 27 Mar. 2020,  https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/new-coronavirus-leaves-pregnant-women-wrenching-choices-little-data-guide-them . Ha, Lan. “Coronavirus and Childbirth: Future Baby Boom or Bust?” Euromonitor International - Market Research Blog, Euromonitor, 1 Oct. 2020,  https://blog.euromonitor.com/coronavirus-and-childbirth-future-baby-boom-or-bust/ . Smith, Kate. “Many Couples Are Putting Pregnancy Plans on Hold Because of the Pandemic.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 10 Aug. 2020,  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-19-pandemic-pregnancy-delay/ . https://theconversation.com/pregnancy-during-a-pandemic-the-stress-of-covid-19-on-pregnant-women-and-new-mothers-is-showing-142466 

How Covid 19 has impacted'supply chains in American industry

Simon Property Group is one of the premier shopping center operators in the world. The firm looks to own, develop, and manage high quality shopping and entertainment destinations. The company is also looking to transition its high value real estate assets into mixed used destinations. Here, the company will not only provide shopping, dining, and entertainment options, but also residential and office experiences. As of its latest annual shareholder filing, Simon owns properties in 37 states and Puerto Rico. COVID-19 has had a disproportionate impact on the overall retail industry and Simon Property Group. The fear of contracting the virus along with nationwide closures have significantly reduced traffic to Simon’s properties. As a result, it supply chains have been dramatically altered throughout the 2020 fiscal year. In addition, COVID-19 has indirectly impacted Simon, through higher adoption rates and usage of online channels. As consumers are now forced to purchased discretionary goods…...

mla References: 1. Agrawal N, Smith SA (2009). Mulit-location inventory models for retail supply chain management. In: Agrawal N, Smith SA (ed) Retail supply chain management. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science. Springer, Boston, MA 2. Alvarado UY, Kotzab H (2001) Supply chain management: The integration of logistics in marketing. Ind Market Manag 30(2):163–198 3. Bhattacharjee S, Ramesh R (2000) A multi-period profit maximizing model for retail supply chain management: An integration of demand and supply-side mechanisms. Eur J Oper Res 122: 584–601 4. Kaufmann, P. J., Donthu, N. and Brooks, C. M. (2000)) ‘Multi-unit retail site selection processes: Incorporating opening delays and unidentified competition’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76, No. 1. 5. Kumar, V. and Karande, K. (2000) ‘The effect of retail store environment on retailer performance’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 49, No. 2 6. Mahajan, V., Sharma, S. and Srinivas, D. (1985) ‘An application of portfolio analysis for identifying attractive retail locations’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 61, No. 4

Hate Crimes against Asians The Surge in COVID 19

Introduction In China, the city of Wuhan is believed to be ground zero of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, which started in late December 2019. The virus has since spread globally, with cases of infection reported in almost all world countries. The United States, in particular, has been heavily affected by the spread of the virus, with the country's death toll in the hundreds of thousands and a still greater number of the infected. Amidst the worry and fear of the viral spread, several reports of harassment and even physical violence to Asian Americans have sprung up across the nation (Gover et al., 647). This paper uses a mix of media information and empirical sources to analyze the nature and effect of the hate crimes committed against Asian Americans in the nation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Anti-Asian Hate Crime during the COVID-19 pandemic The fear created by the rising number of daily…...

mla References Aziz, Sahar. "Anti-Asian racism must be stopped before it is normalized." Al Jazeera (2020). Behrmann, Savannah. "'Chinatown is not part of China': Trump's tweet at Pelosi is met with criticism online." USA TODAY, April 16, (2020). Berman, Robby. "COVID-19 and the surge in anti-Asian hate crimes." Medical New Today, August 2 (2020). Fallows, James. "A reporter's notebook. A 2020-time capsule. The Atlantic, March 18 (2020). Gover, Angela R., Shannon B. Harper, and Lynn Langton. "Anti-Asian hate crime during the CoViD-19 pandemic: exploring the reproduction of inequality." American journal of criminal justice 45.4 (2020): 647-667. Sundstrom, Ronald R., and David Haekwon Kim. "Xenophobia and racism." Critical philosophy of race 2.1 (2014): 20-45. World Health Organization. "WHO issues best practices for naming new human infectious diseases." Notes for the Media, May 8 (2015). Zimmer, Ben. "Where does Trump's 'invasion' rhetoric come from." The Atlantic 8 (2019).

Sample COVID 19 Marketing Program

Introduction: As the holiday season approaches, it is imperative that standards related to social distancing and PPE are adhered to. This is particularly true as Americans enter a critical holiday season where family gathers are scheduled to occur over the next few months. Due to this occurrence, a community outreach program is needed to help mitigate the impacts of the virus on local communities. Through a concerted door to door campaign, we aim to help lower the threat of the virus, educated the community, and ultimately save lives. The campaign will first consist of door to door outreach, talking specifically about how to minimize the impacts of the virus during the holiday season. Here, we will look to share information with households will also provide resources for individuals to utilized during their own time. In conjunction with the door to door campaign we also are looking to use small radio…...

mla References: Sterling, C. (1991). American Electronic Media: A Survey Bibliography. American Studies International, 29(2), 28-54. Retrieved December 5, 2020, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/41280280

How NHL Responded to COVID 19

The National Hockey League and their COVID-19 ResponseThe COVID-19 global pandemic has significantly impacted lives and livelihoods across the globe as the virus continues to spread worldwide and new variants emerge. COVID-19 has essentially affected every sector of the economy and society as governments are forced to adopt measures to contain its spread. One of the areas that have been affected by the spread of the virus is sports. National sports leagues such as the National Hockey League (NHL) have been affected. In the initial stages of the pandemic, NHL suspended all sporting activities just like other national sports leagues in effort to curb the spread of the virus. However, the pandemic still rages on, which implies that NHL has to find better ways of COVID-19 response amidst the emergence of new variants like the Delta variant. This segment provides suggestions for improving NHLs response to the pandemic based on…...

mla References Global CAD. (2020). Managing your organization successfully during COVID-19. Retrieved August 17, 2021, from   https://globalcad.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/GlobalCAD-CovidEnglish_April15v2.pdf  Gregory, S. (2020). The NHL had 0 positive COVID-19 tests throughout postseason. We asked Commissioner Gary Bettman what we can learn from that. Time. Retrieved August 17, 2021, from   https://time.com/5894175/nhl-gary-bettman-stanley-cup-covid/  Guffey, M. E., & Loewy, D. (2019). Essentials of business communication (11th ed.). Australia: Cengage. Maguire, K. (2021). COVID-19 and football: Crisis creates opportunity. The Political Quarterly, 92(1), 132-138.

Effect of COVID 19 on Teacher Burnout

Findings and ResultsThe purpose of this study is to examine the impact of COVID-19 on teacher burnout. The study identifies the COVID-19 global pandemic as an example of environmental factors that contribute to or influence teacher burnout. This research was conducted on grounds that teacher well-being remains one of the most critical issues in the United States educational sector. Teacher well-being has gained interest in the U.S. because of the increased diversity and demands across schools and classrooms. Moreover, given the nature of their work, teachers are predisposed to a series of stressors including lack of emotional support, student discipline problems, and poor working conditions (Ross, Romer, & Horner, 2012). To achieve the purpose of the study, four individual teachers were included in the survey. These participants provided significant insights into the issue of teacher burnout, environmental factors contributing to it, and the impact of COVID-19 on teacher burnout.ResultsAs previously…...

mla References Buchanan, J. (2012). Telling tales out of school: Exploring why former teachers are not returning to the classroom. Australian Journal of Education, 56(2), 205-217. Chang, M.-L. (2009). An appraisal perspective of teacher burnout: examining the emotional work of teachers. Educational Psychology Review, 21(3), 193-218. doi:10.1007/s10648- 009-9106-y Graber, B. D. (2018). From frantic to focused: The impact of environmental factors and personal factors on elementary teacher stress (dissertation). Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest LLC.

How Does COVID-19 Affect Healthcare Economically

Annotated Bibliography Cutler, D. (2020). How will COVID-19 Affect the health care economy? JAMA, 323(22), 2237-2238. DOI: 10.1001/JAMA.2020.7308 The author discusses the economic and healthcare crisis the COVID-19 pandemic created. The projections drawn in the paper predict a 10 to 25% contraction of the US economy in the second quarter. The writer asserts that the United States has entered a COVID-19 recession. The pandemic's economic effect is attributed to the federal government's failure to provide adequate testing facilities. Pak, A., Adegboye, O., Adekunle, A., Rahman, K., McBryde, E., & Eisen, D. (2020). Economic consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak: The need for epidemic preparedness. Public Health, 8(241). DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00241 The author highlights the effect of COVID-19 on the global economy and financial markets. The paper indicates the significant reduction in income, unemployment rise, disruptions in industrial operation, and service rendering due to the measures employed to deal with the pandemic in various countries. An underestimation…...

mla Lenzen, M., Li, M., Malik, A., Pomponi, F., Sun, Y-Y., Wiedmann, T, et al. (2020) Global socio-economic losses and environmental gains from the Coronavirus pandemic. PLoS ONE 15(7).   The consequences of the pandemic have affected social and economic conditions, which have changed society. Consequences such as lockdowns global reductions in production and consumption have engendered a cascading effect along the global supply chains. This paper emphasizes the implementation of preparedness measures, which will cause the least social changes for the population and low economic disruption for businesses. Chudik, A., Mohaddes, K., Pesaran, H., Raissi, M., Rebucci, A. (2020). Economic consequences of Covid-19: A counterfactual multi-country analysis. VOXEU. Retrieved from  https://voxeu.org/article/economic-consequences-covid-19-multi-country-analysis  This article highlights the consequences of the pandemic and establishes ways of analyzing the pandemic. Considering the disruptions in the interconnected world economy, an empirical economic analysis will be suitable for examining the pandemic\\'s nature. In completing the empirical economic analysis, the following key elements must be included: the identification of such an event, an account for the non-linear effects of the pandemic, a consideration of the pandemic\\'s global cascading effect, and quantification of the uncertainties surrounding the forecast of such events. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235654 

Florida Hospital COVID 19 Crisis

Good Health Hospital: COVID-19 CrisisWith any disease, there are three basic levels of addressing the crisis, that of primary care (prevention), management during the early stages, and then more intensive tertiary-level treatment when the disease has become more advanced. With COVID-19, the healthcare system has been dealing with several critical factors regarding the pandemic. As well as the disease itself, there has been an evolution of new variants such as Omicron, which has been infecting already-vaccinated people, and resistance to the idea of vaccination at all. The speed with which the pandemic is intensifying is of particular concern.According to Salvador-Carulla (et al., 2019), hospitals must move from an evidence-based framework, with rigorous long-term testing of various epidemiological approaches. Instead, an evidence-informed framework must be adopted. Hospitals must make do with good enough information, given the rapidity with which the pandemic has spread. Good management has always been compromised of a…...

mla References Khaliq, A.A. (2018). Managerial epidemiology: Principles and applications. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett. Knowles, H. & Beachum, L (2022). Some GOP leaders are scornful or silent about booster shots seen as key to fighting omicron. The Washington Post.   https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/01/04/booster-shots-governors-republican/  Pilishvili, T., Gierke, R., Fleming-Dutra, K. E., Farrar, J. L., Mohr, N. M., Talan, D. A.,Krishnadasan, A., Harland, K. K., Smithline, H. A., Hou, P. C., Lee, L. C., Lim, S. C., Moran, G. J., Krebs, E., Steele, M. T., Beiser, D. G., Faine, B., Haran, J. P., Nandi, U., Schrading, W. A., … Vaccine effectiveness among healthcare personnel study team (2021). Effectiveness of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine among U.S. Health Care Personnel. The New England Journal of Medicine, 385(25), e90.   https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2106599

More Beds in the ICU Needed to Fight COVID 19

Mitigating the COVID Crisis in the ERWhat can be done to mitigate the COVID-19 type crisis in America's emergency rooms? To mitigate the COVID-19 crisis in America's emergency rooms, several actions can be taken. First, increasing the number of hospital beds and staffing levels can aid in managing the high demand for medical care. This can be done through the construction of temporary facilities and the recruitment of healthcare workers from outside the region (Berlinger, 2020). Second, strengthening the supply chain for personal protective equipment (PPE) and other medical supplies can ensure that healthcare workers have the resources they need to safely care for patients. This can involve partnerships with private industry to increase production and distribution of essential items. Third, improving access to COVID-19 testing can help to slow the spread of the virus and reduce the number of hospitalizations. This can be done through expanding the availability of…...

mla References Berlinger, N., Wynia, M., Powell, T., Hester, D. M., Milliken, A., Fabi, R., & Jenks, N. P. (2020). Ethical framework for health care institutions responding to novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) guidelines for institutional ethics services responding to COVID-19. The Hastings Center, 12. Rockwell, K. L., & Gilroy, A. S. (2020). Incorporating telemedicine as part of COVID-19 outbreak response systems. Am J Manag Care, 26(4), 147-148.

How the Ethics Challenges Facing Accountants will Change Post Covid 19

AbstractBusinesses of all sizes and types have suffered from the adverse effects of the ongoing Covid-19 global pandemic, and the world is still facing a fundamental existential threat. Nevertheless, efficacious vaccines have been developed and increasing numbers of consumers are recognizing the need to be vaccinated against this deadly disease to the point where many observers can see the light at the end of the pandemic tunnel. Although no one can predict the future with absolute precision, an article written by the Working Group formed by the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA) and national ethics standard setters (NSS) from Australia, Canada, China, South Africa, the UK and the US provides a timely extrapolation of current economic trajectories to describe several ethics challenges that accountants can be reasonably expected to encounter in the years to come. The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical analysis of the…...

mla References Five ethics challenges that will intensify as the pandemic wanes. (2021, May 10). International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA) and National Standard Setters (NSS) from Australia, Canada, China, South Africa, the U.K., and the U.S. working group. Retrieved from   https://www.ethicsboard.org/news-events/2021-05/5-ethics-challenges-will-intensify-pandemic-wanes .

Need assistance developing essay topics related to Covid 19. Can you offer any guidance?

Of course! Here are some essay topic ideas related to Covid-19: 1. The impact of Covid-19 on mental health: Discuss how the pandemic has affected individuals' mental well-being and explore potential solutions for addressing mental health challenges during this time. 2. The disparities in healthcare access during the Covid-19 pandemic: Analyze how different communities have been disproportionately affected by the virus and delve into the systemic inequalities that have exacerbated health disparities. 3. The economic consequences of Covid-19: Examine the economic fallout of the pandemic, including job losses, business closures, and financial strains on individuals and families. Consider potential strategies for economic recovery....

Essay Topics Related to COVID-19 Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on individuals, societies, and economies worldwide. Its multifaceted nature presents a wealth of topics suitable for academic exploration. This essay provides guidance on developing engaging and insightful essay topics related to COVID-19, offering a comprehensive range of perspectives to choose from. Health and Medical Impacts The Impact of COVID-19 on Public Health: Assessing the Global Response and Preparedness Long-Term Health Effects of COVID-19: Exploring Physical, Mental, and Social Consequences The Role of Vaccines in Combating COVID-19: Ethical, Scientific, and Policy Considerations The Impact of COVID-19 on Healthcare Systems: Resource....

How has COVID-19 impacted global travel and tourism trends?

COVID-19 has had a significant impact on global travel and tourism trends. The pandemic has led to widespread travel restrictions, border closures, and changes in consumer behavior, all of which have had a major effect on the travel and tourism industry. Some of the key impacts of COVID-19 on global travel and tourism trends include: 1. Travel restrictions and border closures: Many countries have implemented travel restrictions and closed their borders to international visitors in an effort to contain the spread of the virus. This has led to a dramatic decrease in international travel and tourism and has had a significant....

COVID-19's Devastating Impact on Global Travel and Tourism: A Trend Analysis The COVID-19 pandemic has unleashed a seismic shock on the global travel and tourism industry, leaving a trail of unprecedented disruption and economic turmoil. As governments imposed travel restrictions and lockdowns to contain the virus, the once-bustling travel sector came to a screeching halt, with dire consequences for businesses and destinations worldwide. Here's an in-depth analysis of the profound impact of COVID-19 on global travel and tourism trends: Crumbling Travel Demand and Economic Losses The pandemic has decimated travel demand, leading to a catastrophic decline in international arrivals. According to the World....

Sign Up for Unlimited Study Help

Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.

I Thought We’d Learned Nothing From the Pandemic. I Wasn’t Seeing the Full Picture

M y first home had a back door that opened to a concrete patio with a giant crack down the middle. When my sister and I played, I made sure to stay on the same side of the divide as her, just in case. The 1988 film The Land Before Time was one of the first movies I ever saw, and the image of the earth splintering into pieces planted its roots in my brain. I believed that, even in my own backyard, I could easily become the tiny Triceratops separated from her family, on the other side of the chasm, as everything crumbled into chaos.

Some 30 years later, I marvel at the eerie, unexpected ways that cartoonish nightmare came to life – not just for me and my family, but for all of us. The landscape was already covered in fissures well before COVID-19 made its way across the planet, but the pandemic applied pressure, and the cracks broke wide open, separating us from each other physically and ideologically. Under the weight of the crisis, we scattered and landed on such different patches of earth we could barely see each other’s faces, even when we squinted. We disagreed viciously with each other, about how to respond, but also about what was true.

Recently, someone asked me if we’ve learned anything from the pandemic, and my first thought was a flat no. Nothing. There was a time when I thought it would be the very thing to draw us together and catapult us – as a capital “S” Society – into a kinder future. It’s surreal to remember those early days when people rallied together, sewing masks for health care workers during critical shortages and gathering on balconies in cities from Dallas to New York City to clap and sing songs like “Yellow Submarine.” It felt like a giant lightning bolt shot across the sky, and for one breath, we all saw something that had been hidden in the dark – the inherent vulnerability in being human or maybe our inescapable connectedness .

More from TIME

Read More: The Family Time the Pandemic Stole

But it turns out, it was just a flash. The goodwill vanished as quickly as it appeared. A couple of years later, people feel lied to, abandoned, and all on their own. I’ve felt my own curiosity shrinking, my willingness to reach out waning , my ability to keep my hands open dwindling. I look out across the landscape and see selfishness and rage, burnt earth and so many dead bodies. Game over. We lost. And if we’ve already lost, why try?

Still, the question kept nagging me. I wondered, am I seeing the full picture? What happens when we focus not on the collective society but at one face, one story at a time? I’m not asking for a bow to minimize the suffering – a pretty flourish to put on top and make the whole thing “worth it.” Yuck. That’s not what we need. But I wondered about deep, quiet growth. The kind we feel in our bodies, relationships, homes, places of work, neighborhoods.

Like a walkie-talkie message sent to my allies on the ground, I posted a call on my Instagram. What do you see? What do you hear? What feels possible? Is there life out here? Sprouting up among the rubble? I heard human voices calling back – reports of life, personal and specific. I heard one story at a time – stories of grief and distrust, fury and disappointment. Also gratitude. Discovery. Determination.

Among the most prevalent were the stories of self-revelation. Almost as if machines were given the chance to live as humans, people described blossoming into fuller selves. They listened to their bodies’ cues, recognized their desires and comforts, tuned into their gut instincts, and honored the intuition they hadn’t realized belonged to them. Alex, a writer and fellow disabled parent, found the freedom to explore a fuller version of herself in the privacy the pandemic provided. “The way I dress, the way I love, and the way I carry myself have both shrunk and expanded,” she shared. “I don’t love myself very well with an audience.” Without the daily ritual of trying to pass as “normal” in public, Tamar, a queer mom in the Netherlands, realized she’s autistic. “I think the pandemic helped me to recognize the mask,” she wrote. “Not that unmasking is easy now. But at least I know it’s there.” In a time of widespread suffering that none of us could solve on our own, many tended to our internal wounds and misalignments, large and small, and found clarity.

Read More: A Tool for Staying Grounded in This Era of Constant Uncertainty

I wonder if this flourishing of self-awareness is at least partially responsible for the life alterations people pursued. The pandemic broke open our personal notions of work and pushed us to reevaluate things like time and money. Lucy, a disabled writer in the U.K., made the hard decision to leave her job as a journalist covering Westminster to write freelance about her beloved disability community. “This work feels important in a way nothing else has ever felt,” she wrote. “I don’t think I’d have realized this was what I should be doing without the pandemic.” And she wasn’t alone – many people changed jobs , moved, learned new skills and hobbies, became politically engaged.

Perhaps more than any other shifts, people described a significant reassessment of their relationships. They set boundaries, said no, had challenging conversations. They also reconnected, fell in love, and learned to trust. Jeanne, a quilter in Indiana, got to know relatives she wouldn’t have connected with if lockdowns hadn’t prompted weekly family Zooms. “We are all over the map as regards to our belief systems,” she emphasized, “but it is possible to love people you don’t see eye to eye with on every issue.” Anna, an anti-violence advocate in Maine, learned she could trust her new marriage: “Life was not a honeymoon. But we still chose to turn to each other with kindness and curiosity.” So many bonds forged and broken, strengthened and strained.

Instead of relying on default relationships or institutional structures, widespread recalibrations allowed for going off script and fortifying smaller communities. Mara from Idyllwild, Calif., described the tangible plan for care enacted in her town. “We started a mutual-aid group at the beginning of the pandemic,” she wrote, “and it grew so quickly before we knew it we were feeding 400 of the 4000 residents.” She didn’t pretend the conditions were ideal. In fact, she expressed immense frustration with our collective response to the pandemic. Even so, the local group rallied and continues to offer assistance to their community with help from donations and volunteers (many of whom were originally on the receiving end of support). “I’ve learned that people thrive when they feel their connection to others,” she wrote. Clare, a teacher from the U.K., voiced similar conviction as she described a giant scarf she’s woven out of ribbons, each representing a single person. The scarf is “a collection of stories, moments and wisdom we are sharing with each other,” she wrote. It now stretches well over 1,000 feet.

A few hours into reading the comments, I lay back on my bed, phone held against my chest. The room was quiet, but my internal world was lighting up with firefly flickers. What felt different? Surely part of it was receiving personal accounts of deep-rooted growth. And also, there was something to the mere act of asking and listening. Maybe it connected me to humans before battle cries. Maybe it was the chance to be in conversation with others who were also trying to understand – what is happening to us? Underneath it all, an undeniable thread remained; I saw people peering into the mess and narrating their findings onto the shared frequency. Every comment was like a flare into the sky. I’m here! And if the sky is full of flares, we aren’t alone.

I recognized my own pandemic discoveries – some minor, others massive. Like washing off thick eyeliner and mascara every night is more effort than it’s worth; I can transform the mundane into the magical with a bedsheet, a movie projector, and twinkle lights; my paralyzed body can mother an infant in ways I’d never seen modeled for me. I remembered disappointing, bewildering conversations within my own family of origin and our imperfect attempts to remain close while also seeing things so differently. I realized that every time I get the weekly invite to my virtual “Find the Mumsies” call, with a tiny group of moms living hundreds of miles apart, I’m being welcomed into a pocket of unexpected community. Even though we’ve never been in one room all together, I’ve felt an uncommon kind of solace in their now-familiar faces.

Hope is a slippery thing. I desperately want to hold onto it, but everywhere I look there are real, weighty reasons to despair. The pandemic marks a stretch on the timeline that tangles with a teetering democracy, a deteriorating planet , the loss of human rights that once felt unshakable . When the world is falling apart Land Before Time style, it can feel trite, sniffing out the beauty – useless, firing off flares to anyone looking for signs of life. But, while I’m under no delusions that if we just keep trudging forward we’ll find our own oasis of waterfalls and grassy meadows glistening in the sunshine beneath a heavenly chorus, I wonder if trivializing small acts of beauty, connection, and hope actually cuts us off from resources essential to our survival. The group of abandoned dinosaurs were keeping each other alive and making each other laugh well before they made it to their fantasy ending.

Read More: How Ice Cream Became My Own Personal Act of Resistance

After the monarch butterfly went on the endangered-species list, my friend and fellow writer Hannah Soyer sent me wildflower seeds to plant in my yard. A simple act of big hope – that I will actually plant them, that they will grow, that a monarch butterfly will receive nourishment from whatever blossoms are able to push their way through the dirt. There are so many ways that could fail. But maybe the outcome wasn’t exactly the point. Maybe hope is the dogged insistence – the stubborn defiance – to continue cultivating moments of beauty regardless. There is value in the planting apart from the harvest.

I can’t point out a single collective lesson from the pandemic. It’s hard to see any great “we.” Still, I see the faces in my moms’ group, making pancakes for their kids and popping on between strings of meetings while we try to figure out how to raise these small people in this chaotic world. I think of my friends on Instagram tending to the selves they discovered when no one was watching and the scarf of ribbons stretching the length of more than three football fields. I remember my family of three, holding hands on the way up the ramp to the library. These bits of growth and rings of support might not be loud or right on the surface, but that’s not the same thing as nothing. If we only cared about the bottom-line defeats or sweeping successes of the big picture, we’d never plant flowers at all.

More Must-Reads from TIME

• The 100 Most Influential People in AI 2024
• Inside the Rise of Bitcoin-Powered Pools and Bathhouses
• How Nayib Bukele’s ‘Iron Fist’ Has Transformed El Salvador
• What Makes a Friendship Last Forever?
• Long COVID Looks Different in Kids
• Your Questions About Early Voting , Answered
• Column: Your Cynicism Isn’t Helping Anybody
• The 32 Most Anticipated Books of Fall 2024

Contact us at [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Editorial: Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): The Impact and Role of Mass Media During the Pandemic

Patrícia arriaga.

1 Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, Iscte-University Institute of Lisbon, CIS-IUL, Lisbon, Portugal

Francisco Esteves

2 Department of Psychology and Social Work, Mid Sweden University, Östersund, Sweden

Marina A. Pavlova

3 Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical School and University Hospital, Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

Nuno Piçarra

The outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has created a global health crisis that had a deep impact on the way we perceive our world and our everyday lives. Not only has the rate of contagion and patterns of transmission threatened our sense of agency, but the safety measures to contain the spread of the virus also required social and physical distancing, preventing us from finding solace in the company of others. Within this context, we launched our Research Topic on March 27th, 2020, and invited researchers to address the Impact and Role of Mass Media During the Pandemic on our lives at individual and social levels.

Despite all the hardships, disruption, and uncertainty brought by the pandemic, we received diverse and insightful manuscript proposals. Frontiers in Psychology published 15 articles, involving 61 authors from 8 countries, which were included in distinct specialized sections, including Health Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology, Emotion Science, and Organizational Psychology. Despite the diversity of this collective endeavor, the contributions fall into four areas of research: (1) the use of media in public health communication; (2) the diffusion of false information; (3) the compliance with the health recommendations; and (4) how media use relates to mental health and well-being.

A first line of research includes contributions examining the use of media in public health communication. Drawing on media messages used in previous health crises, such as Ebola and Zika, Hauer and Sood describe how health organizations use media. They offer a set of recommendations for COVID-19 related media messages, including the importance of message framing, interactive public forums with up-to-date information, and an honest communication about what is known and unknown about the pandemic and the virus. Following a content analysis approach, Parvin et al. studied the representations of COVID-19 in the opinion section of five Asian e-newspapers. The authors identified eight main issues (health and drugs, preparedness and awareness, social welfare and humanity, governance and institutions, the environment and wildlife, politics, innovation and technology, and the economy) and examined how e-newspapers from these countries attributed different weights to these issues and how this relates to the countries' cultural specificity. Raccanello et al. show how the internet can be a platform to disseminate a public campaign devised to inform adults about coping strategies that could help children and teenagers deal with the challenges of the pandemic. The authors examined the dissemination of the program through the analysis of website traffic, showing that in the 40 days following publication, the website reached 6,090 visits.

A second related line of research that drew the concern of researchers was the diffusion of false information about COVID-19 through the media. Lobato et al. examined the role of distinct individual differences (political orientation, social dominance orientation, traditionalism, conspiracy ideation, attitudes about science) on the willingness to share misinformation about COVID-19 over social media. The misinformation topics varied between the severity and spread of COVID-19, treatment and prevention, conspiracy theories, and miscellaneous unverifiable claims. Their results from 296 adult participants (Mage = 36.23; 117 women) suggest two different profiles. One indicating that those reporting more liberal positions and lower social dominance were less willing to share conspiracy misinformation. The other profile indicated that participants scoring high on social dominance and low in traditionalism were more willing to share both conspiracy and other miscellaneous claims, but less willing to share misinformation about the severity and spread of COVID-19. Their findings can have relevant contributions for the identification of specific individual profiles related to the widespread of distinct types of misinformation. Dhanani and Franz examined a sample of 1,141 adults (Mage = 44.66; 46.9% female, 74.7% White ethnic identity) living in the United States in March 2020. The authors examined how media consumption and information source were related to knowledge about COVID-19, the endorsement of misinformation about COVID-19, and prejudice toward Asian Americans. Higher levels of trust in informational sources such as public health organizations (e.g., Center for Disease Control) was associated with greater knowledge, lower endorsement of misinformation, and less prejudice toward Asian Americans. Media source was associated with distinct levels of knowledge, willingness to endorsement misinformation and prejudice toward American Asians, with social media use (e.g., Twitter, Facebook) being related with a lower knowledge about COVID-19, higher endorsement of misinformation, and stronger prejudice toward Asian Americans.

A third line of research addressed the factors that could contribute to compliance with the health recommendations to avoid the spread of the disease. Vai et al. studied early pre-lockdown risk perceptions about COVID-19 and the trust in media sources among 2,223 Italians (Mage = 36.4, 69.2% female). They found that the perceived usefulness of the containment measures (e.g., social distancing) was related to threat perception and efficacy beliefs. Lower threat perception was associated with less perception of utility of the containment measures. Although most participants considered themselves and others capable of taking preventive measures, they saw the measures as generally ineffective. Participants acknowledged using the internet as their main source of information and considered health organizations' websites as the most trustworthy source. Albeit frequently used, social media was in general considered an unreliable source of information. Tomczyk et al. studied knowledge about preventive behaviors, risk perception, stigmatizing attitudes (support for discrimination and blame), and sociodemographic data (e.g., age, gender, country of origin, education level, region, persons per household) as predictors of compliance with the behavioral recommendations among 157 Germans, (age range: 18–77 years, 80% female). Low compliance was associated with male gender, younger age, and lower public stigma. Regarding stigmatizing attitudes, the authors only found a relation between support for discrimination (i.e., support for compulsory measures) and higher intention to comply with recommendations. Mahmood et al. studied the relation between social media use, risk perception, preventive behaviors, and self-efficacy in a sample of 310 Pakistani adults (54.2% female). The authors found social media use to be positively related to self-efficacy and perceived threat, which were both positively related to preventive behaviors (e.g., hand hygiene, social distancing). Information credibility was also related to compliance with health recommendations. Lep et al. examined the relationship between information source perceived credibility and trust, and participants' levels of self-protective behavior among 1,718 Slovenians (age range: 18–81 years, 81.7% female). The authors found that scientists, general practitioners (family doctors), and the National Institute of Public Health were perceived as the more credible source of information, while social media and government officials received the lowest ratings. Perceived information credibility was found to be associated with lower levels of negative emotional responses (e.g., nervousness, helplessness) and a higher level of observance of self-protective measures (e.g., hand washing). Siebenhaar et al. also studied the link between compliance, distress by information, and information avoidance. They examined the online survey responses of 1,059 adults living in Germany (Mage = 39.53, 79.4% female). Their results suggested that distress by information could lead to higher compliance with preventive measures. Distress by information was also associated with higher information avoidance, which in turn is related to less compliance. Gantiva et al. studied the effectiveness of different messages regarding the intentions toward self-care behaviors, perceived efficacy to motivate self-care behaviors in others, perceived risk, and perceived message strength, in a sample of 319 Colombians (age range: 18–60 years, 69.9% female). Their experiment included the manipulation of message framing (gain vs. loss) and message content (economy vs. health). Participants judged gain-frame health related messages to be stronger and more effective in changing self-behavior, whereas loss-framed health messages resulted in increased perceived risk. Rahn et al. offer a comparative view of compliance and risk perception, examining three hazard types: COVID-19 pandemic, violent acts, and severe weather. With a sample of 403 Germans (age range: 18–89 years, 72% female), they studied how age, gender, previous hazard experience and different components of risk appraisal (perceived severity, anticipated negative emotions, anticipatory worry, and risk perception) were related to the intention to comply with behavioral recommendations. They found that higher age predicted compliance with health recommendations to prevent COVID-19, anticipatory worry predicted compliance with warning messages regarding violent acts, and women complied more often with severe weather recommendations than men.

A fourth line of research examined media use, mental health and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Gabbiadini et al. addressed the use of digital technology (e.g., voice/video calls, online games, watching movies in party mode) to stay connected with others during lockdown. Participants, 465 Italians (age range: 18–73 years, 348 female), reported more perceived social support associated with the use of these digital technologies, which in turn was associated with fewer feelings of loneliness, boredom, anger, and higher sense of belongingness. Muñiz-Velázquez et al. compared the media habits of 249 Spanish adults (Mage = 42.06, 53.8% female) before and during confinement. They compared the type of media consumed (e.g., watching TV series, listening to radio, watching news) and found the increased consumption of TV and social networking sites during confinement to be negatively associated with reported level of happiness. People who reported higher levels of well-being also reported watching less TV and less use of social networking sites. Majeed et al. , on the other hand, examined the relation between problematic social media use, fear of COVID-19, depression, and mindfulness. Their study, involving 267 Pakistani adults (90 female), suggested trait mindfulness had a buffer effect, reducing the impact of problematic media use and fear of COVID-19 on depression.

Taken together, these findings highlight how using different frames for mass media gives a more expansive view of its positive and negative roles, but also showcase the major concerns in the context of a pandemic crisis. As limitations we highlight the use of cross-sectional designs in most studies, not allowing to establish true inferences of causal relationships. The outcome of some studies may also be limited by the unbalanced number of female and male participants, by the non-probability sampling method used, and by the restricted time frame in which the research occurred. Nevertheless, we are confident that all the selected studies in our Research Topic bring important and enduring contributions to the understanding of how media, individual differences, and social factors intertwine to shape our lives, which can also be useful to guide public policies during these challenging times.

Author Contributions

PA: conceptualization, writing the original draft, funding acquisition, writing—review, and editing. FE: conceptualization, writing—review, and editing. MP: writing—review and editing. NP: conceptualization, writing the original draft, writing—review, and editing. All authors approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to all the authors who proposed their work, all the researchers who reviewed the submissions to this Research Topic, and to Rob Richards for proofreading the Editorial manuscript.

Funding. PA and NP received partial support to work on this Research Topic through Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) with reference to the project PTDC/CCI-INF/29234/2017. MP contribution was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG, PA847/22-1 and PA847/25-1). The authors are independent of the funders.

• Frontiers in Psychology
• Personality and Social Psychology
• Research Topics

Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): The Impact and Role of Mass Media During the Pandemic

Total Downloads

Total Views and Downloads

About this Research Topic

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has created a global health crisis that has had a deep impact on the way we perceive our world and our everyday lives. Not only the rate of contagion and patterns of transmission threatens our sense of agency, but the safety measures put in place to contain ...

Keywords : COVID-19, coronavirus disease, mass media, health communication, prevention, intervention, social behavioral changes

Important Note : All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.

Topic Editors

Topic coordinators, recent articles, submission deadlines.

Submission closed.

Participating Journals

Total views.

• Demographics

No records found

total views article views downloads topic views

Top countries

Top referring sites, about frontiers research topics.

With their unique mixes of varied contributions from Original Research to Review Articles, Research Topics unify the most influential researchers, the latest key findings and historical advances in a hot research area! Find out more on how to host your own Frontiers Research Topic or contribute to one as an author.

• Deakin Home
• Student news
• StudentConnect
• Help and contact us

COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on all aspects of our lives is well known.

Victoria experienced six lockdowns between March 2020 and October 2021 that collectively totalled 262 days. Deakin University sought to mitigate this impact on the research by higher degree by research students in various ways, including providing priority access to laboratories and support to pivot research projects. Not all impact on research could be mitigated with direct and indirect effects of limited domestic and international travel, closed university campuses and restricted in-person access to human research participants.

Within this context, you have the option of describing the impact of COVID-19 on your research and how you modified your topic, methods and data collection due to COVID-19 restrictions. The COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement aims to provide the examiners with a clearer understanding of how the research was affected and shaped due to COVID-19 disruptions.

A COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement is not required and you may submit your thesis for examination without reference to the COVID-19 pandemic. Should you wish to submit your thesis with a COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement, do so only under the advice of your supervisory panel.

Please note that you may opt to include a COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement for examination and remove it from your library copy but you cannot do the reverse. A COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement cannot be included in your library copy if it wasn’t included in the examination copy.

Content of a COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement

Following is some examples and advice of what and what not to include in your COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement.

• How your planned research activities such as topic, research question, methods and data collection and/or the scope of your research were disrupted or changed due the pandemic. For instance: inability to conduct fieldwork or face-to-face research; access to facilities such as labs, archives or other working spaces; inability to collect or analyse data due to travel restrictions.
• How the research was shaped by the disruption: the actions or decisions taken to mitigate the disruption; new focus; revised research questions or development; pivoting or adjusting the research project.
• Any other relevant factors relating to the impact of the COVID-19 disruption on your research.
• Ensure that you do not infer that your thesis is of a lower standard due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Your COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement should not address any effect on your personal circumstances.

Format of a COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement

You may choose to include the statement as an upfront additional page in your thesis and/or address the impact within the content of the thesis.

If placed as a separate page at the beginning of your thesis, it should be no more than 600 words.

We encourage you to discuss with your supervisor the format of a COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement that best fits your thesis and impact on your research.

We use cookies to improve your experience. You consent to the use of our cookies if you proceed. Visit our Privacy policy for more information.

• Fact sheets
• Facts in pictures
• Publications
• Questions and answers
• Tools and toolkits
• Endometriosis
• Excessive heat
• Mental disorders
• Polycystic ovary syndrome
• All countries
• Eastern Mediterranean
• South-East Asia
• Western Pacific
• Data by country
• Country presence 
• Country strengthening 
• Country cooperation strategies 
• News releases
• Feature stories
• Press conferences
• Commentaries
• Photo library
• Afghanistan
• Cholera 
• Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
• Greater Horn of Africa
• Israel and occupied Palestinian territory
• Disease Outbreak News
• Situation reports
• Weekly Epidemiological Record
• Surveillance
• Health emergency appeal
• International Health Regulations
• Independent Oversight and Advisory Committee
• Classifications
• Data collections
• Global Health Observatory
• Global Health Estimates
• Mortality Database
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Health Inequality Monitor
• Global Progress
• World Health Statistics
• Partnerships
• Committees and advisory groups
• Collaborating centres
• Technical teams
• Organizational structure
• Initiatives
• General Programme of Work
• WHO Academy
• Investment in WHO
• WHO Foundation
• External audit
• Financial statements
• Internal audit and investigations 
• Programme Budget
• Results reports
• Governing bodies
• World Health Assembly
• Executive Board
• Member States Portal
• Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) /
• Global research on coronavirus disease (COVID-19) /
• Accelerating a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine

Section navigation

• Global research on coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
• WHO COVID-19 Solidarity Therapeutics Trial
• "Solidarity II" global serologic study for COVID-19
• Solidarity Trial Vaccines 

Information on this page is not up to date. Please go to our latest information on COVID-19 vaccines.

The availability of a safe and effective vaccine for COVID-19 is well-recognized as an additional tool to contribute to the control of the pandemic. At the same time, the challenges and efforts needed to rapidly develop, evaluate and produce this at scale are enormous. It is vital that we evaluate as many vaccines as possible as we cannot predict how many will turn out to be viable.

To increase the chances of success (given the high level of attrition during vaccine development), we must test all candidate vaccines until they fail. WHO is working to ensure that all of them have the chance of being tested at the initial stage of development.

This is a major and extraordinary global research undertaking: WHO is facilitating collaboration and accelerated efforts on a scale not seen before; it is convening vital communications across the research community and beyond.

R&D Roadmap for COVID-19

Highlights of WHO actions so far

• Harnessing a broad global coalition to develop and evaluate candidate vaccines as quickly and safely as possible by convening and coordinating multiple public and private partners and using the best scientific and public health evidence and ethical principles.
• Mapping candidate vaccines and their progress across the world and fostering regular open dialogue between researchers and vaccine developers to expedite the exchange of scientific results, debate concerns and propose rapid and robust methods for vaccine evaluation.
• Defining the desired characteristics of safe and effective vaccines to drive and focus research that is public health and needs oriented.
• Coordinating clinical trials across the world to accelerate multiple actions with the aim of providing a safe and effective vaccine as early as possible.

The 4 critical elements of WHO global R&D efforts in detail

1. Harnessing a broad global coalition to develop and evaluate candidate vaccines as quickly and safely as possible

WHO’s core function is to direct and coordinate international efforts through:

• Global collaboration and cooperation;
• Development of robust methods;
• Working to accelerate progress and avoid duplication of research efforts;
• Coordinating an unparalleled effort to rapidly and simultaneously assess many vaccines.

WHO is facilitating interactions between scientists, developers and funders to support coordination, and/or provide common platforms for working together. It is combining the relative strengths of different stakeholders. It has used its global mandate to rapidly convene 300 scientists, developers and funders to increase the likelihood that one or more safe and effective vaccines will soon be available to all. Activities are being delivered at extremely high speed with many steps executed simultaneously.

2. Mapping candidate vaccines and their progress across the world

Over 210 candidate vaccines are at some stage of development. Of these, at least 48 candidate vaccines are in human trial. About 10 are in phase III trials. There are several others currently in phase I/II, which will enter phase III in the coming months.

WHO is fostering regular open dialogue between researchers and vaccine developers to expedite the exchange of scientific results, debate concerns and propose rapid and robust methods for vaccine evaluation.

3. Defining the desired characteristics of safe and effective vaccines to combat the pandemic

To guide the efforts of vaccine developers, WHO has drawn up a Global Target Product Profile  target product profiles  (TPPs) for COVID-19.

This document outlines the minimum and desired attributes of safe and effective vaccines. The TPPs cover two types of vaccines: vaccines for the long-term protection of people at higher risk of COVID-19 such as healthcare workers; and vaccines for use in response to outbreaks with rapid onset of immunity.

WHO has also coordinated  expert consultations  to identify the potential role of different animal models and laboratory assays to evaluate and screen candidate vaccines before their evaluation in humans. We are devising an unprecedented effort for rapid assessment of many candidates simultaneously before they are tested in humans.

4. Coordinating clinical trials across the world – giving humanity the best chance of safe and effective vaccines for all

WHO is proposing to massively accelerate the evaluation of vaccines. Its expert group has designed a large international  randomized controlled clinical trial  to enable the simultaneous evaluation of the benefits and risks of different vaccines at sites with sufficiently high rates of the disease. This will ensure a faster turnaround of results.

The power of the vaccine Solidarity trial is its global ambition, and the potential to rapidly deploy and assess vaccines in areas with high transmission. The results for the efficacy of each vaccine are expected within three to six months and this evidence, combined with data on safety, will inform decisions about whether it can be used on a wider scale in those countries or regions where the vaccines are being tested.

WHO expert groups are also considering:

• Key criteria  to help prioritize which vaccines should go into Phase II and III clinical trials;
• A Phase 2b/3 protocol  that can be used by all vaccine developers to shape their trial, which will enable real-time evaluation of the benefits and risks of each promising candidate vaccine

Once a safe and effective vaccine becomes available, it will be vital that it is accessible to everyone who needs it. WHO will continue to work to align R&D, fast-track regulatory approvals and manufacturing so that all populations in all countries can access a vaccine as early as possible.

The centre-piece of the world’s research response is a globally agreed scientific R&D Roadmap for COVID-19, which details steps for current and future work.

COVID-19 vaccine tracker and landscape COVID-19 vaccine tracker and landscape

WHO R&D actions for COVID-19