Skip to main content

Table 1 Percentage reduction in cumulative influenza attack rate, 2000–2017

From: Effectiveness of workplace social distancing measures in reducing influenza transmission: a systematic review

First author, year published Country Influenza strain Interventionb Percentage reductiona
R0 ≤ 1.9 R0 = 2.0–2.4 R0 ≥ 2.5
Epidemiological studiesc
 Rousculp, 2010 [27] USA Seasonal influenza A(H3N2), 2007–2008 Single 20
 Kumar, 2012 [28] USA 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic Single 36
 Lee, 2010 [29] Singapore 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic Multiple 61
Modeling studies
 Timpka, 2016 [30] Sweden Future pandemic strain Single 12d
 Zhang, 2012 [31] Singapore Not reported Single 18
 Mao, 2011 [32] USA Seasonal scenario (R0 = 1.4) and a pandemic scenario (R0 = 2.0) Single 82 23
 Xia, 2013 [33] China 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic Single
Single + VAC
 Milne, 2008 [34] Australia Pandemic strain Single 28 13 7
Multiple 94 96 95
 Milne, 2013 [35] Papua New Guinea Pandemic strain Multiple 63e
 Miller, 2008 [36] USA Influenza A(H3N2) in population with no prior immunity Multiple 88
 Andradottir, 2011 [37] Canada 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic Multiple 30
Multiple + VAC 61
Multiple + AV 73
 Perlroth, 2010 [38] USA Not reported Multiple 77 38
Multiple + AV 90 71
 Halloran-Imperial/Pitt model, 2008 [39] USA Future pandemic strain Multiple 73
Multiple + AV 83 70 53
 Halloran-UW/LANL model, 2008 [39] USA Future pandemic strain Multiple 89
Multiple + AV 94 92 86
 Halloran-VBI model, 2008 [39] USA Future pandemic strain Multiple 72
Multiple + AV 91 81 64
  1. Abbreviations: ILI influenza-like illness, R 0 basic reproduction number, Imperial/Pitt Imperial College and the University of Pittsburgh, UW/LANL University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle and the Los Alamos National Laboratories, VBI Virginia Bioinformatics Institute of the Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University
  2. aPercentage reduction = ((Attack rate in the absence of intervention – Attack rate with intervention) / Attack rate in the absence of intervention) × 100. Unless otherwise stated, percentage reduction applies to the intervention group in the epidemiological studies and to the general population in the modeling studies
  3. bSingle: Workplace social distancing (e.g., working from home, reduction in workplace contacts by 50%); Multiple: Workplace social distancing and other nonpharmaceutical interventions; AV: Antiviral treatment and prophylaxis; VAC: Vaccination
  4. cOutcomes are surrogates for influenza: Rousculp - Attended work with severe ILI; Kumar - ILI; Lee - Seroconversion to 2009 influenza A(H1N1)
  5. dReduction in cumulative influenza attack rate in the workplace = 58%
  6. eReduction in cumulative influenza attack rate in the workplace = 81%