Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32968525›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2020

Perceived efficacy of COVID-19 restrictions, reactions and their impact on mental health during the early phase of the outbreak in six countries.

Martin Jensen Mækelæ, Niv Reggev, Natalia Dutra, Ricardo M Tamayo, Reinaldo A Silva-Sobrinho, Kristoffer Klevjer, Gerit Pfuhl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

66 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors.

Martin Jensen MækelæDepartment of Psychology, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-6791-1218
Niv ReggevDepartment of Psychology and Zlotowski Center for Neuroscience, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-5734-7457
Natalia DutraDepartment of Physiology and Behavior, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-0766-0795
Ricardo M TamayoDepartamento de Psicología, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Colombia.ORCID 0000-0002-8678-0145
Reinaldo A Silva-SobrinhoLaboratory of Epidemiology and Operational Research in Health, Western Paraná State University - Unioeste, Foz Iguaçu-PR, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-0421-4447
Kristoffer KlevjerDepartment of Psychology, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-4298-4418
Gerit PfuhlDepartment of Psychology, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-3271-6447

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic forced millions of people to drastically change their social life habits as governments employed harsh restrictions to reduce the spread of the virus. Although beneficial to physical health, the perception of physical distancing and related restrictions could impact mental health. In a pre-registered online survey, we assessed how effective a range of restrictions were perceived, how severely they affected daily life, general distress and paranoia during the early phase of the outbreak in Brazil, Colombia, Germany, Israel, Norway and USA. Most of our over 2000 respondents rated the restrictions as effective. School closings were perceived as having the strongest effect on daily life. Participants who believed their country reacted too mildly perceived the risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 to be higher, were more worried and expressed reduced beliefs in the ability to control the outbreak. Relatedly, dissatisfaction with governmental reactions corresponded with increased distress levels. Together, we found that satisfaction with one's governmental reactions and fear appraisal play an important role in assessing the efficacy of restrictions during the pandemic and their related psychological outcomes. These findings inform policy-makers on the psychological factors that strengthen resilience and foster the well-being of citizens in times of global crisis.

Indexed as

distresslockdownpandemicperceived riskprotection motivation theory

Identifiers

PMID32968525
PMCPMC7481706

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.