ArticlePloS one2020
Pre-outbreak determinants of perceived risks of corona infection and preventive measures taken. A prospective population-based study.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review on Sex- and Gender-Sensitive Research in Public Mental Health During the First Wave of the COVID-19 Crisis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Pooled it
- COVID-19 Prevention and Mitigation Decision-Making Processes While Navigating Chronic Disease Care: Perspectives of Black Adults with Heart Failure and Diabetes.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAssess how people perceive the risks of coronavirus infection, whether people take preventive measures, and which pre-outbreak factors contribute to the perceived risks and measures taken, such as pre-outbreak respiratory problems, heart problems, diabetes, anxiety and depression symptoms, loneliness, age, gender, marital and employment status and education level.
methodsData were collected in the longitudinal LISS panel, based on a random sample of the Dutch population. The coronavirus survey started on March 2, and the data collection ended on March 17 2020. Data were linked with surveys on health and social integration conducted at the end of 2019 (Nstudy sample = 3,540).
resultsAbout 15% perceived the risk of infection as high, and 11% the risk becoming ill when infected. Multivariable logistic regression analyses showed the following. Older age-groups perceived the risk for coronavirus infection as lower (all adjusted Odd Ratio's [aOR] ≤ .070). In total, 43.8% had taken preventive measures, especially females (aOR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.26-1.70). Those with lower education levels less often used preventive measures (aOR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.45-0.67). Those with pre-outbreak respiratory problems (aOR = 2.75, 95% CI = 2.11-3.57), heart problems (aOR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.34-2.92) and diabetes (aOR = 3.12, 95% CI = 2.02-4.82) perceived the risk becoming ill when infected as higher than others. However, respondents with pre-outbreak respiratory problems and diabetes did not more often take preventive measures.
conclusionsVulnerable patients more often recognize that they are at risk becoming ill when infected by the coronavirus, but many do not take preventive measures. Interventions to stimulate the use of preventive measures should pay additional attention to physically vulnerable patients, males and those with lower education levels.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.