METHODS: A structured, systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Databases of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, IDEAS/REPEC, OSHLINE, HSELINE, and NIOSHTIC-2 were reviewed. Study quality appraisal was performed using the Table of Evidence Levels from Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Joanna Briggs Institute tools, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and Center of Evidence Based Management case study critical appraisal checklist. Quantitative analysis was not attempted due to the heterogeneity of included studies. A qualitative synthesis of primary studies examining socioeconomic impact of airborne and droplet-borne infectious diseases outbreaks in any industry was performed and a framework based on empirical findings was conceptualized.
RESULTS: A total of 55 studies conducted from 1984 to 2021 were included, reporting on 46,813,038 participants working in multiple industries across the globe. The quality of articles were good. On the whole, direct socioeconomic impacts of Coronavirus Disease 2019, influenza, influenza A (H1N1), Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, tuberculosis and norovirus outbreaks include increased morbidity, mortality, and health costs. This had then led to indirect impacts including social impacts such as employment crises and reduced workforce size as well as economic impacts such as demand shock, supply chain disruptions, increased supply and production cost, service and business disruptions, and financial and Gross Domestic Product loss, attributable to productivity losses from illnesses as well as national policy responses to contain the diseases.
CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that airborne and droplet-borne infectious diseases have inflicted severe socioeconomic costs on regional and global industries. Further research is needed to better understand their long-term socioeconomic impacts to support improved industry preparedness and response capacity for outbreaks. Public and private stakeholders at local, national, and international levels must join forces to ensure informed systems and sector-specific cost-sharing strategies for optimal global health and economic security.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in Makkah and Malaysia during the 2013 hajj season. A self-administered proforma on social demographics, previous experience of hajj or umrah, smoking habits, co-morbid illness and practices of preventive measures against respiratory illness were obtained.
RESULTS: A total of 468 proforma were analysed. The prevalence of the respiratory illness was 93.4% with a subset of 78.2% fulfilled the criteria for influenza-like illness (ILI). Most of them (77.8%) had a respiratory illness of <2 weeks duration. Approximately 61.8% were administered antibiotics but only 2.1% of them had been hospitalized. Most of them acquired the infection after a brief stay at Arafat (81.2%). Vaccination coverages for influenza virus and pneumococcal disease were quite high, 65.2% and 59.4%, respectively. For other preventive measures practices, only 31.8% of them practiced good hand hygiene, ∼82.9% of pilgrims used surgical face masks, N95 face masks, dry towels, wet towels or veils as their face masks. Nearly one-half of the respondents (44.4%) took vitamins as their food supplement. Malaysian hajj pilgrims with previous experience of hajj (OR 0.24; 95% CI 0.10-0.56) or umrah (OR 0.19; 95% CI 0.07-0.52) and those who have practiced good hand hygiene (OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.16-0.79) were found to be significantly associated with lower risk of having respiratory illness. Otherwise, pilgrims who had contact with those with respiratory illness (OR 2.61; 95% CI 1.12-6.09) was associated with higher risk.
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of respiratory illness remains high among Malaysian hajj pilgrims despite having some practices of preventive measures. All preventive measures which include hand hygiene, wearing face masks and influenza vaccination must be practiced together as bundle of care to reduce respiratory illness effectively.