Non-pharmaceutical intervention (epidemiology)
In epidemiology, a non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI) is any method used to reduce the spread of an epidemic disease without requiring pharmaceutical drug treatments.
Examples of non-pharmaceutical interventions that reduce the spread of infectious diseases include wearing a face mask and staying away from sick people.
[9] Choosing to stay home to prevent the spread of symptoms of a potential sickness, covering coughs and sneezes, and washing one's hands regularly, are all examples of non-pharmaceutical interventions.
In the past, suggestions have been made that covering the mouth and nose, like with an elbow, tissue, or hand, would be a viable measure towards reducing the transmissions of airborne diseases.
[21] Cloth face masks can be used for source control (as a last resort) but are not considered personal protective equipment[22][21] as they have low filter efficiency (generally varying between 2–60%), although they are easy to obtain and reusable after washing.
[25] Germs can survive outside the body on hard surfaces for periods ranging from hours to weeks, depending on the virus and environmental conditions.
The disinfection of high-touch surfaces with substances such as bleach or alcohol kills germs, preventing indirect contact transmission.
[9] Viruses such as influenza and coronavirus thrive in cold, dry environments, and increasing the humidity of a room may reduce their transmission.
[36] Measures taken in the workplace include: remote work; paid leave; staggering shifts such that arrival, exit, and break times are different for each employee; reduced contact; and extended weekends.
Public awareness campaigns have been used in the past for areas affected by infectious diseases such as dengue, malaria, Middle East respiratory syndrome, and H1N1 influenza.
More intensive measures such as molecular diagnostics and point-of-care rapid antigen detection tests may also be used, but they carry a high resource cost and may not be applicable to a large number of travelers.
Screening is considered by the WHO to be both acceptable and feasible, though they did not recommend its use in the case of influenza outbreak due to its inefficacy in identifying asymptomatic individuals.
Freedom of movement is considered in many places to be a human right, and its restriction may have an adverse effect, particularly among vulnerable populations, such as migrant workers and those traveling to seek medical attention.
Although 37% of the Member States of the WHO included internal travel restrictions as part of their pandemic preparedness plan as of 2019, some of those countries may face legal challenges in implementing them, because of their own laws.
Strict border closure in island nations could be effective, although supply chain problems may cause adverse disruptions.
Supply chain problems due to border closure are likely to cause disruption of essential goods, such as food and medications, as well as serious economic effects.
[9] Non-pharmaceutical interventions were widely adopted during the 1918 flu outbreak – most famously, the radical quarantine of Gunnison, Colorado resulted in sparing the town the worst of the earlier waves of the pandemic.
[1] Interventions used included the wearing of face masks, isolation, quarantine, personal hygiene, use of disinfectants, and limits on public gatherings.
There was a growing awareness of "overreacting" and "under-reacting" among U.S. public health authorities, and these opposing perspectives often added to the uncertainties inherent in the epidemic.
[8] Evidence suggests that highly effective strategies include closing schools and universities,[43] banning large gatherings,[43] and wearing face masks.
