Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32328220›Full record

ReviewBehavior analysis in practice2020

A Proposed Process for Risk Mitigation During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

David J Cox, Joshua B Plavnick, Matthew T Brodhead

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Behavior analysis in practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
21.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Systemic Challenges in Internship Training for Health-Service Psychology: A Call to Action From Trainee Stakeholders.Clinical psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2022
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. COVID-19 Pandemic and Impact on Patients with Autism Spectrum Disorder.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The Effect of COVID-19 on Education.Pediatric clinics of North America · 2021
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Spatial Disparities of COVID-19 Cases and Fatalities in United States Counties.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

David J CoxDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21224 USA.
Joshua B PlavnickDepartment of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education, College of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 USA.
Matthew T BrodheadDepartment of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education, College of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 USA.
Michigan State University · USJohns Hopkins Medicine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent executive orders have led some applied behavior analysis (ABA) providers to interpret themselves as "essential personnel" during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this article, we argue against a blanket interpretation that being labeled "essential personnel" means that all in-person ABA services for all clients should continue during the COVID-19 pandemic. We believe this argument holds even if ABA providers are not in a jurisdiction currently under an active shelter-at-home or related order. First, we provide a brief description of risks associated with continued in-person ABA service delivery, as well as risks associated with the temporary suspension of services or the transition to remote ABA service delivery. For many clients, continued in-person service delivery carries a significant risk of severe harm to the client, family and caregivers, staff, and a currently overburdened health care system. In these situations, ABA providers should temporarily suspend services or transition to telehealth or other forms of remote service delivery until information from federal, state, and local health care experts deems in-person contact safe. In rare cases, temporary suspension of services or a transition to remote service delivery may place the client or others at risk of significant harm. In these situations, in-person services should likely continue, and ongoing assessment and risk mitigation are essential.

Indexed as

AutismCOVID-19Decision makingEssential servicesEthicspandemic

Identifiers

PMID32328220
PMCPMC7178923
OpenAlexW3018733822

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.