Turcotte-Tremblay AM(1)(2), Gali Gali IA(3), Ridde V(4). Author information:
(1)School of Public Health, Université de Montréal, 7101 Avenue du Parc,
Montreal, QC, H3N 1X9, Canada. [Email]
(2)Department and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 665
Huntington Avenue, Building 1, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
(3)Bureau d'Appui Santé et Environnement, N'Djamena, Chad.
(4)IRD (French Institute for Research on Sustainable Development), CEPED,
Université de Paris, 45 Rue des Saints-Pères, 75006, Paris, France.
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has led to the adoption of unprecedented mitigation measures which could trigger many unintended consequences. These unintended consequences can be far-reaching and just as important as the intended ones. The World Health Organization identified the assessment of unintended consequences of COVID-19 mitigation measures as a top priority. Thus far, however, their systematic assessment has been neglected due to the inattention of researchers as well as the lack of training and practical tools. MAIN TEXT: Over six years our team has gained extensive experience conducting research on the unintended consequences of complex health interventions. Through a reflexive process, we developed insights that can be useful for researchers in this area. Our analysis is based on key literature and lessons learned reflexively in conducting multi-site and multi-method studies on unintended consequences. Here we present practical guidance for researchers wishing to assess the unintended consequences of COVID-19 mitigation measures. To ensure resource allocation, protocols should include research questions regarding unintended consequences at the outset. Social science theories and frameworks are available to help assess unintended consequences. To determine which changes are unintended, researchers must first understand the intervention theory. To facilitate data collection, researchers can begin by forecasting potential unintended consequences through literature reviews and discussions with stakeholders. Including desirable and neutral unintended consequences in the scope of study can help minimize the negative bias reported in the literature. Exploratory methods can be powerful tools to capture data on the unintended consequences that were unforeseen by researchers. We recommend researchers cast a wide net by inquiring about different aspects of the mitigation measures. Some unintended consequences may only be observable in subsequent years, so longitudinal approaches may be useful. An equity lens is necessary to assess how mitigation measures may unintentionally increase disparities. Finally, stakeholders can help validate the classification of consequences as intended or unintended. CONCLUSION: Studying the unintended consequences of COVID-19 mitigation measures is not only possible but also necessary to assess their overall value. The practical guidance presented will help program planners and evaluators gain a more comprehensive understanding of unintended consequences to refine mitigation measures.
Having over 250 Research scholars worldwide and more than 400 articles online with open access.