Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33309450›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of preventive medicine2021

Asynchrony Between Individual and Government Actions Accounts for Disproportionate Impact of COVID-19 on Vulnerable Communities.

Moustafa Abdalla, Arjan Abar, Evan R Beiter, Mohamed Saad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of preventive medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

4 authors.

Moustafa AbdallaHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Division of General Pediatrics, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Computational Statistics and Machine Learning Group, Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. Electronic address: moustafa_abdalla@hms.harvard.edu.
Arjan AbarHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Evan R BeiterHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Mohamed SaadUniversity of Bahrain & the Royal Academy, Manama, Bahrain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPreviously estimated effects of social distancing do not account for changes in individual behavior before the implementation of stay-at-home policies or model this behavior in relation to the burden of disease. This study aims to assess the asynchrony between individual behavior and government stay-at-home orders, quantify the true impact of social distancing using mobility data, and explore the sociodemographic variables linked to variation in social distancing practices.

methodsThis study was a retrospective investigation that leveraged mobility data to quantify the time to behavioral change in relation to the initial presence of COVID-19 and the implementation of government stay-at-home orders. The impact of social distancing that accounts for both individual behavior and testing data was calculated using generalized mixed models. The role of sociodemographics in accounting for variation in social distancing behavior was modeled using a 10-fold cross-validated elastic net (linear machine learning model). Analysis was conducted in April‒July 2020.

resultsAcross all the 1,124 counties included in this analysis, individuals began to socially distance at a median of 5 days (IQR=3-8) after 10 cumulative cases of COVID-19 were confirmed in their state, with state governments taking a median of 15 days (IQR=12-19) to enact stay-at-home orders. Overall, people began social distancing at a median of 12 days (IQR=8-17) before their state enacted stay-at-home orders. Of the 16 studies included in the review, 13 exclusively used government dates as a proxy for social distancing behavior, and none accounted for both testing and mobility. Using government stay-at-home dates as a proxy for social distancing (10.2% decrease in the number of daily cases) accounted for only 55% of the true impact of the intervention when compared with estimates using mobility (18.6% reduction). Using 10-fold cross-validation, 23 of 43 sociodemographic variables were significantly and independently predictive of variation in individual social distancing, with delays corresponding to an increase in a county's proportion of people without a high school diploma and proportion of racial and ethnic minorities.

conclusionsThis retrospective analysis of mobility patterns found that social distancing behavior occurred well before the onset of government stay-at-home dates. This asynchrony leads to the underestimation of the impact of social distancing. Sociodemographic characteristics associated with delays in social distancing can help explain the disproportionate case burden and mortality among vulnerable communities.

Indexed as

Physical DistancingAgedAge FactorsConsumer BehaviorCost of IllnessCOVID-19FemaleGeographyHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, StatisticalPoisson DistributionPublic PolicyQuarantineRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID33309450
PMCPMC7664479

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.