What are effective strategy to constrain COVID-19 pandemic crisis? lessons learned from a comparative policy analysis between Italian regions to cope with next pandemic impact

  1. Mario Coccia
  2. Igor Benati

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The pandemic of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its variants is rapidly spreading all over the world, generating a high number of infections, deaths and negative impact on socioeconomic system of countries. As vaccines and appropriate drugs for treatment of the COVID-19 can reduce the effectiveness in the presence of variants and/or new viral agents, one of the questions in social studies of medicine is effective public policy responses to reduce the impact of COVID-19 global pandemic and similar infectious diseases on health of people and on economies. This study analyzes public policy responses to the pandemic crisis across Italian regions that were the first areas to experience a rapid increase in confirmed cases and deaths of COVID-19. The analysis of regional strategies, from January to July 2020, reveals differences in public policy responses to delay and reduce the height of epidemic peak and to afford health-care systems more time to expand and respond to this new emergency. Veneto Region in North-East Italy has managed health policy responses with: a) a timely and widespread testing of individuals, b) units of epidemiological investigation for tracing all contacts of infected people in an effective contact tracing system. This public policy response has reduced total deaths and the final size of COVID-19 pandemic on health of people. Other regions have done public interventions without a clear strategy and goals to cope with diffusion of COVID-19 and as a consequence, they have had a higher negative impact on public health. Lesson learned can be important to design an effective public policy that can be generalized in different regional and national systems to prevent and/or reduce future epidemics or pandemics similar to the COVID-19.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.05.15.22275107: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2022.05.15.22275107v1 on medRxiv