Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33213080›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020

Effectiveness of Innovation Media for Improving Physical Distancing Compliance during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Quasi-Experiment in Thailand.

Hattaya Chutiphimon, Apinya Thipsunate, Atigun Cherdchim, Bootsarakam Boonyaphak, Panat Vithayasirikul, Patiphan Choothong, Swit Vichathai, Pitchayanont Ngamchaliew, Polathep Vichitkunakorn

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hattaya ChutiphimonFaculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla 90110, Thailand.
Apinya ThipsunateFaculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla 90110, Thailand.
Atigun CherdchimFaculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla 90110, Thailand.
Bootsarakam BoonyaphakFaculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla 90110, Thailand.
Panat VithayasirikulFaculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla 90110, Thailand.
Patiphan ChoothongFaculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla 90110, Thailand.
Swit VichathaiFaculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla 90110, Thailand.
Pitchayanont NgamchaliewDepartment of Family and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla 90110, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0003-1100-3138
Polathep VichitkunakornDepartment of Family and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla 90110, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0003-2309-5308
Prince of Songkla University · TH

Funding

Institute of Research and Development for Health of Southern Thailand (RDH) MED-PSU-005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To flatten the curve of COVID-19 infections, with no effective pharmacological interventions or vaccine available in the imminent future, public health responses must continue to rely on non-pharmacological interventions. We developed three innovation media to promote physical distancing compliance (i.e., a fearful picture, a red one-way arrow sign, and a norm-speech sticker). This study aimed to compare physical distancing compliance between our interventions and conventional interventions. Our study was a quasi-experiment, and we observed a representative sample of university canteen customers via closed-circuit television (CCTV). Each intervention was monitored over non-prime-time hours, per day, on 6-9 August 2020. Among the 400 participants (100 participants in each group), their age group, gender, and physical distancing practices were observed in a university canteen. The number of failures of physical distancing ranged between 93.8% and 17.6%, and on average between 84.2% and 34.2%, dependent on the intervention and the marking point. There were no statistically significant differences in promoting physical distancing compliance between our interventions compared with conventional interventions. However, the participants tended to practice physical distancing at the back of the queue more than at the front, regardless of the interventions.

Indexed as

Patient ComplianceBetacoronavirusCommunicable Disease ControlCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19HumansPandemicsPneumonia, ViralSARS-CoV-2Social IsolationThailandCOVID-19innovation mediaphysical distancing

Identifiers

PMID33213080
PMCPMC7698538
OpenAlexW3105897232

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.