First author, year published | Study design | Influenza strain and transmissibility (R0) | Population, setting, and number of people (n) | Intervention(s) and comparatora | Relevant outcomes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Epidemiological studies | |||||
 Rousculp, 2010 [27] | Cohort (participants surveyed at baseline and monthly from October 2007 to April 2008) | Seasonal influenza A(H3N2), 2007–2008 | Employees of three large US companies (national retail chain, transportation, and manufacturing) (n = 793 employees with ILI) | Single: Can work from home Comparator: Cannot work from home | Attended work for ≥1 day while ILI symptoms were most severe (which would result in transmission to co-workers) |
 Kumar, 2012 [28] | Cross-sectional (survey completed from January 22 to February 1, 2010) | 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic | Random sample of US adults from the Knowledge Networks online research panel (n = 2079) | Single: Can work from home Comparator: Cannot work from home | ILI during April 2009 to date survey completed |
 Lee, 2010 [29] | Cohort (June 22 to October 9, 2009) | 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic | Singapore military personnel (n = 907) | Multiple: Standard pandemic plan (provided general health education on respiratory and hand hygiene and advised to seek medical care if ill) + segregation of units into subgroups as small as 20 individuals (including having different activity and meal times, and times of entry and exit from camp) + daily temperature and symptom monitoring with provision of home medical leave Comparator: Standard pandemic plan | Seroconversion to 2009 influenza A(H1N1); time to peak (based on onset of symptoms among those who seroconverted) |
Modeling studies | |||||
 Timpka, 2016 [30] | Model based on an ontology system. Mean duration of outbreak in the reference model = 92 days | Future pandemic strain | General population in Linkoping municipality, Sweden (n = 136,000) | Single: Social distancing that decreases workplace influenza virus transmission probability by 50% Comparator: No intervention | Cumulative influenza attack rate |
 Zhang, 2012 [31] | Agent-based model. Simulated for 200 days. Intervention is triggered at a threshold of 0.02% | R0 = 1.9 | General population in Singapore (n = 480,000, representing a 10% sample) | Single: Team-based rotational workforce shift for 6 weeks (i.e., each company or institution splits its employees into two work teams and minimizes contacts between the teams through 7-day rotations of staying at home or attending work) Comparator: No intervention | Cumulative and peak influenza attack rates; peak attack day |
 Mao, 2011 [32] | Agent-based model. Simulated for 200 days. Intervention is triggered at a threshold of 0.1% | Seasonal scenario (R0 = 1.4) and a pandemic scenario (R0 = 2.0) | General population in Buffalo, New York, USA (n = 985,001) | Single: Weekend extension by 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon, Tues, Wed). Comparator: No weekend extension (Sat, Sun) | Cumulative influenza attack rate; daily new cases |
 Xia, 2013 [33] | Compartmental model. Simulated for 200 days | 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic. R0 = 1.5 | General population in Hong Kong, China (n = 7 million) | Single: Workplace contact reduction Single + Vaccination: Workplace contact reduction + vaccination with a coverage of 2.5% Comparator: No intervention | Peak infectious population; days to peak |
Agent-based model. Intervention is triggered before the introduction of the first infected case | Pandemic strain. R0 = 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 | General population in Albany, Australia (n = 30,000) | Single: Workplace nonattendance (each person attending a workplace has a 50% chance each day of staying home instead of attending the workplace) Multiple: Workplace nonattendance + school closure + case isolation + community contact reduction Comparator: No intervention | Cumulative and peak influenza attack rates | |
 Milne, 2013 [35] | Agent-based model. Intervention is triggered 2 weeks after the first case | Pandemic strain. R0 = 1.88 | General population in Madang, Papua New Guinea (n = 35,000) | Multiple: Workplace nonattendance (each person attending a workplace has a 50% chance each day of staying home instead of attending the workplace) + community contact reduction (50%) + school closure Comparator: No intervention | Cumulative influenza attack rate; daily incident cases |
 Miller, 2008 [36] | Discrete event model. Intervention is triggered after the first infection in city | Influenza A(H3N2) in population with no prior immunity | General population in San Antonio, Texas, USA (n = 1.4 million) | Multiple: Reducing the number of community contacts to 50% by day 21 after first infection (representing closing schools and churches, banning public gatherings, and encouraging people to work from home) Comparator: No intervention | Cumulative influenza attack rate |
 Andradottir, 2011 [37] | Individual-based compartmental model. Simulated for 180 days. Intervention is triggered at a threshold of 0.01% | 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic. R0 = 1.4 | General population in Hamilton, Canada (n = 649,565) | Multiple: Social distancing (20% reduction in workplace and general community contacts) + school closure Multiple + Vaccination: Social distancing + school closure + vaccination of up to 35% of the population with a vaccine with 40% vaccine efficacy (60-day delay in vaccination after trigger threshold is reached) Multiple + Antiviral: Social distancing + school closure + antiviral treatment and prophylaxis of up to 10% of the population Comparator: No intervention | Cumulative influenza attack rate |
 Perlroth, 2010 [38] | Agent-based model. Intervention is triggered at a threshold of 0.1% | R0 = 1.6, 2.1 | General population in a small US town (n = 10,000) | Multiple: Adult social distancing (work contacts reduced by 50%) + child social distancing + school closure Multiple + Antiviral: Adult social distancing + child social distancing + school closure + antiviral treatment and prophylaxis Comparator: No intervention | Cumulative influenza attack rate |
 Halloran (Imperial-Pitt model), 2008 [39] | Agent-based model. Results at day 180 of the epidemic are reported. Intervention is triggered at a threshold of 1% | Future pandemic strain. R0 = 1.9, 2.4, 3.0 | General population in Chicago, Illinois, USA (n = 8.6 million) | Multiple + Antiviral: Workplace social distancing (workplace contacts reduced by 50%) + community social distancing + school closure + interventions within the households of ascertained influenza cases (antiviral treatment and prophylaxis, home isolation of cases, and quarantine of household contacts) Multiple: Above, excluding antiviral treatment and prophylaxis Comparator: No intervention | Cumulative influenza attack rate |
 Halloran (UW/LANL model), 2008 [39] | Agent-based model. Results at day 180 of the epidemic are reported. Intervention is triggered at a threshold of 1% | Future pandemic strain. R0 = 2.1, 2.4, 3.0 | General population in Chicago, USA (n = 8.6 million) | Multiple + Antiviral: Workplace social distancing (workplace contacts reduced by 50%) + community social distancing + school closure + interventions within the households of ascertained influenza cases (antiviral treatment and prophylaxis, home isolation of cases, and quarantine of household contacts) Multiple: Above, excluding antiviral treatment and prophylaxis Comparator: No intervention | Cumulative influenza attack rate |
 Halloran (VBI model), 2008 [39] | Agent-based model. Results at day 180 of the epidemic are reported. Intervention is triggered at a threshold of 1% | Future pandemic strain. R0 = 2.1, 2.4, 3.0 | General population in Chicago, USA (n = 8.6 million) | Multiple + Antiviral: Workplace social distancing (workplace contacts reduced by 50%) + community social distancing + school closure + interventions within the households of ascertained influenza cases (antiviral treatment and prophylaxis, home isolation of cases, and quarantine of household contacts) Multiple: Above, excluding antiviral treatment and prophylaxis Comparator: No intervention | Cumulative influenza attack rate |