Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33686363›Full record

ArticleCrime science2021

Six months in: pandemic crime trends in England and Wales.

Samuel Langton, Anthony Dixon, Graham Farrell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Crime science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The Impact of Urban Facilities on Crime during the Pre- and Pandemic Periods: A Practical Study in Beijing.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Activity-adjusted crime rates show that public safety worsened in 2020.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Samuel LangtonSchool of Law, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1322-1553
Anthony DixonSchool of Law, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Graham FarrellSchool of Law, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Governments around the world have enforced strict guidelines on social interaction and mobility to control the spread of the COVID-19 virus. Evidence has begun to emerge which suggests that such dramatic changes in people's routine activities have yielded similarly dramatic changes in criminal behavior. This study represents the first 'look back' on six months of the nationwide lockdown in England and Wales. Using open police-recorded crime trends, we provide a comparison between expected and observed crime rates for fourteen different offence categories between March and August, 2020. We find that most crime types experienced sharp, short-term declines during the first full month of lockdown. This was followed by a gradual resurgence as restrictions were relaxed. Major exceptions include anti-social behavior and drug crimes. Findings shed light on the opportunity structures for crime and the nuances of using police records to study crime during the pandemic. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40163-021-00142-z.

Indexed as

ARIMACOVID-19MobilityOpportunity theoryPandemicRoutine activitiesTime series

Identifiers

PMID33686363
PMCPMC7931172

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.