Abstract
Testing for COVID-19 has been deployed globally as a tool to interrupt transmission through isolating positive contacts from the broader population. Financial support systems have been deployed to increase the isolation compliance, there is uncertainty as to the effectiveness of these measures.
Three reviews were identified, as well as four primary studies that were published after the review search dates.
Six studies showed that financial support for isolation was associated with a higher compliance to isolate. Two epidemiological modelling studies found that increased levels of social isolation were associated with a reduction in COVID-19 transmission. The findings from a DCE demonstrated a positive relationship with longer isolation duration and higher financial requirements. An economic model showed that support programmes have the potential to be a cost-effective intervention. A retrospective observational study offered evidence supporting the viability of delivering medically assisted isolation hotels for people unable to isolate at home. Further to the COVID-19 literature, two household surveys found that financial support and improved social restriction information was associated with compliance with H1N1 isolation
Policy and practice implications: There is limited evidence to suggest that financial support for isolation can increase compliance, lower social engagement, and reduce infection levels. There is insufficient evidence to inform the optimal scale of financial support required. There was no evidence related to effectiveness of financial support for disadvantaged populations who are required to isolate or any insight to the impact of financial support on equality
The overall certainty in the evidence is relatively low. Most studies relied on participant reported data on preference or behaviour, and where observational data were used there were issues with data quality and unobserved cofounders.
Rapid Review Details
Review conducted by
Review conducted by Health Technology Wales
Review Team
Review Team Lauren Elston, Jenni Washington, Elise Hasler, Tom Winfield
Review submitted to the WCEC on
Review submitted to the WCEC on 27th July 2022
Stakeholder consultation meeting
Stakeholder consultation meeting 13th June 2022
Rapid Review report issued by the WCEC on
Rapid Review report issued by the WCEC on August 2022
WCEC Team
WCEC Team
Adrian Edwards, Alison Cooper, Ruth Lewis, Jane Greenwell and Micaela Gal involved in drafting Topline Summary and editing
This review should be cited as
This review should be cited as RR00020.Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre. A rapid review of the effectiveness of financial support schemes for individuals requested to self-isolate following a positive Covid test or positive contact. August 2022
This report can be accessed from the WCEC library: https://healthandcareresearchwales.org/wales-covid-19-evidence-centre-report-library
Disclaimer
Disclaimer The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors, not necessarily Health and Care Research Wales. The WCEC and authors of this work declare that they have no conflict of interest.
TOPLINE SUMMARY
What is a Rapid Review?
What is a Rapid Review?Our rapid reviews use a variation of the systematic review approach, abbreviating or omitting some components to generate the evidence to inform stakeholders promptly whilst maintaining attention to bias. They follow the methodological recommendations and minimum standards for conducting and reporting rapid reviews, including a structured protocol, systematic search, screening, data extraction, critical appraisal, and evidence synthesis to answer a specific question and identify key research gaps. They take 1-2 months, depending on the breadth and complexity of the research topic/ question(s), extent of the evidence base, and type of analysis required for synthesis.
Who is this summary for?
Who is this summary for?Welsh Government
Background / Aim of Rapid Review
Background / Aim of Rapid Review Testing for COVID-19 has been deployed globally as a tool to interrupt transmission through isolating positive contacts from the broader population. Financial support systems have been deployed to increase the isolation compliance, there is uncertainty as to the effectiveness of these measures.
Key Findings
Key Findings Three reviews were identified, as well as four primary studies that were published after the review search dates. Due to the diversity and paucity of evidence identified, the primary studies included in the reviews (n = 5) were extracted and reported alongside the other primary evidence. This resulted in 9 primary studies extracted and summarised in this report.
Extent of the evidence base
Extent of the evidence base
The primary studies focused mainly on the COVID 19 pandemic (n=7) with two studies set in the context of the H1N1 pandemic.
The study types included: epidemiological modelling studies (n=2), economic modelling study (n=1), questionnaire-based publication (n=1), discrete choice experiments (DCEs) (n=2), retrospective observational study (n=1), and household surveys (both H1N1, n=2).
The studies were conducted in the USA (n=3), Brazil (n=1), Iran (n=1), Australia (n=2, H1N1 studies), or across multiple countries (USA, Mexico, and Kenya; n=1). No UK-based studies were identified.
Most studies (n=7) included a general population, but one study focused on a homeless population, and one study included staff and students at university.
Recency of the evidence base
Recency of the evidence base
7 primary studies were conducted in the last 2 years; the 2 studies from the H1N1 pandemic were conducted in 2011-12.
Evidence of effectiveness
Evidence of effectiveness
Six studies showed that financial support for isolation was associated with a higher compliance to isolate.
Two epidemiological modelling studies found that increased levels of social isolation were associated with a reduction in COVID-19 transmission.
The findings from a DCE demonstrated a positive relationship with longer isolation duration and higher financial requirements.
An economic model showed that support programmes have the potential to be a cost-effective intervention.
A retrospective observational study offered evidence supporting the viability of delivering medically assisted isolation hotels for people unable to isolate at home.
Further to the COVID-19 literature, two household surveys found that financial support and improved social restriction information was associated with compliance with H1N1 isolation.
Policy Implications
Policy Implications
There is limited evidence to suggest that financial support for isolation can increase compliance, lower social engagement, and reduce infection levels.
There is insufficient evidence to inform the optimal scale of financial support required.
There was no evidence related to effectiveness of financial support for disadvantaged populations who are required to isolate or any insight to the impact of financial support on equality
Strength of Evidence
Strength of Evidence The overall certainty in the evidence is relatively low. Most studies relied on participant reported data on preference or behaviour, and where observational data were used there were issues with data quality and unobserved cofounders.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Health Technology Wales was funded for this work by the Wales Covid-19 Evidence Centre, itself funded by Health & Care Research Wales on behalf of Welsh Government
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
Abbreviations
- Acronym
- Full Description
- COVID-19
- Coronavirus disease 2019
- CI
- Confidence interval
- OR
- Odds ratio
- DCE
- Discrete choice experiment
- FFCRA
- Families first coronavirus response act
- AE
- Aux’ silio Emergencial (Financial support program)
- RCT
- Randomised control trials
