Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
190,860 studies31 sourcesUpdated 51 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY-NC 4.0The European Journal of Public Health

Outbreak control in congregate living settings: results of a scoping review

Abstract

Background: As a precursor to developing an evidence-based guideline, we conducted a scoping review (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/RWKN9) to identify and describe evidence on public health measures to control outbreaks of infectious diseases in specific congregate settings.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for empirical literature (January 2000–November 2025) in English, French, or German. Studies had to report an outbreak and related public health measures in OECD countries, in settings defined by the German Infection Protection Act, section 36(1) items 3.-5.: (1) homeless shelters, (2) collective accommodation for persons with specific residency or migration status, (3) other mass accommodation. Two reviewers conducted study selection and data extraction. Results were summarised descriptively.

Results: Of 3,273 publications identified, we included 90. Citation searching added 39 records (N = 129). Acute respiratory infections accounted for 32% (n = 41) of reports, followed by vaccine-preventable diseases (25%, n = 32), tuberculosis (24%, n = 31), gastrointestinal infections (9%, n = 12), hepatitis A and scabies (2%, n = 3 each). Public health and social measures varied by disease type; overall case isolation (54%, n = 70), symptomatic testing (48%, n = 62), symptom-independent screening (47%, n = 61), and general personal hygiene measures (36%, n = 46) predominated. Outbreak control was demonstrated mainly by measures of disease occurrence at different time points (49%, n = 63), mostly without reporting comparators (65%, n = 82). Unintended consequences of control measures, e.g. social and psychological consequences, were reported in 19% (n = 24) of records.

Conclusions: Published reports provide evidence regarding the use of outbreak control measures in congregate settings, but include limited information on effectiveness and unintended consequences. The lack of standardised reporting on outbreak management highlights an opportunity to strengthen public health evidence.

Key messages: • The published literature yields information regarding the nature of public health measures used to control outbreaks of a range of infectious diseases in congregate settings.

• Stronger evidence on effectiveness and unintended consequences of outbreak control measures is needed to guide evidence-based public health decisions in these settings.

Related

  1. Effect of local versus global risk and normative information on voluntary quarantine adoption: protocol for a 2×2 randomised controlled trial leveraging app-based epigames across diverse congregate settings (The Epi-Q Study).
    Estelle McCool, Winnie W Mkandawire, Salihu S Musa +14
    BMJ openPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMCCrossref
  2. The UK Health System's Response to the Monkeypox Outbreak of 2022: A Scoping Review.
    Harris Khan, Samir Kumar Sarker Rony, Venetia Aranha
    Journal of global infectious diseasesPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-SAFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  3. Nationwide Surveillance and Control Measures during Large Measles Outbreak, Bangladesh, 2026
    M. Fazla Rabbi, Pritom Muztahid, Farah Al Mahdi
    Emerging Infectious DiseasesPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full text1 citedEpidemiology & public healthDOAJPMC
  4. Discrimination in medical settings as perceived by forcibly displaced people within low- and middle-income countries: a scoping literature review.
    Kerstin M Grosheintz-Laval, Patrick Kwizera, Mirko S Winkler
    Public health reviewsPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textPsychiatry & mental healthEurope PMC
  5. How Are Support Surfaces Used in Pressure Ulcer Care Within Nursing Home Settings Assessed? A Scoping Review
    Jérémy Enez, Marielle André, Romain Pichon +2
    International Wound JournalPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0Full textGeneral biologyGeneral medicineHAL
BibTeX
@article{sisnowski2026outbreak,
  title = {{Outbreak control in congregate living settings: results of a scoping review}},
  author = {J Sisnowski and L Schneider and SJ Ratky and S Lehmann and I Markus and N Sarma and K Kajikhina and K Bozorgmehr and E Rehfuess and A Kuehne},
  journal = {The European Journal of Public Health},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.1605},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.1605},
  note = {CC BY-NC 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Outbreak control in congregate living settings: results of a scoping review
AU  - J Sisnowski
AU  - L Schneider
AU  - SJ Ratky
AU  - S Lehmann
AU  - I Markus
AU  - N Sarma
AU  - K Kajikhina
AU  - K Bozorgmehr
AU  - E Rehfuess
AU  - A Kuehne
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/01
JO  - The European Journal of Public Health
DO  - 10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.1605
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.1605
AB  - Background: As a precursor to developing an evidence-based guideline, we conducted a scoping review (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/RWKN9) to identify and describe evidence on public health measures to control outbreaks of infectious diseases in specific congregate settings.  Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for empirical literature (January 2000–November 2025) in English, French, or German. Studies had to report an outbreak and related public health measures in OECD countries, in settings defined by the German Infection Protection Act, section 36(1) items 3.-5.: (1) homeless shelters, (2) collective accommodation for persons with specific residency or migration status, (3) other mass accommodation. Two reviewers conducted study selection and data extraction. Results were summarised descriptively.  Results: Of 3,273 publications identified, we included 90. Citation searching added 39 records (N = 129). Acute respiratory infections accounted for 32% (n = 41) of reports, followed by vaccine-preventable diseases (25%, n = 32), tuberculosis (24%, n = 31), gastrointestinal infections (9%, n = 12), hepatitis A and scabies (2%, n = 3 each). Public health and social measures varied by disease type; overall case isolation (54%, n = 70), symptomatic testing (48%, n = 62), symptom-independent screening (47%, n = 61), and general personal hygiene measures (36%, n = 46) predominated. Outbreak control was demonstrated mainly by measures of disease occurrence at different time points (49%, n = 63), mostly without reporting comparators (65%, n = 82). Unintended consequences of control measures, e.g. social and psychological consequences, were reported in 19% (n = 24) of records.  Conclusions: Published reports provide evidence regarding the use of outbreak control measures in congregate settings, but include limited information on effectiveness and unintended consequences. The lack of standardised reporting on outbreak management highlights an opportunity to strengthen public health evidence.  Key messages: • The published literature yields information regarding the nature of public health measures used to control outbreaks of a range of infectious diseases in congregate settings.  • Stronger evidence on effectiveness and unintended consequences of outbreak control measures is needed to guide evidence-based public health decisions in these settings.
SN  - 1101-1262
SN  - 1464-360X
ER  -