Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33720951›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Social distancing compliance: A video observational analysis.

Evelien M Hoeben, Wim Bernasco, Lasse Suonperä Liebst, Carlijn van Baak, Marie Rosenkrantz Lindegaard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Predicting physical distancing on recreational trails during COVID-19.Journal of outdoor recreation and tourism · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  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

5 authors.

Evelien M HoebenNetherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0486-4175
Wim BernascoNetherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3385-0883
Lasse Suonperä LiebstDepartment of Sociology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen K, Denmark.
Carlijn van BaakNetherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3823-078X
Marie Rosenkrantz LindegaardNetherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1630-774X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeVirus epidemics may be mitigated if people comply with directives to stay at home and keep their distance from strangers in public. As such, there is a public health interest in social distancing compliance. The available evidence on distancing practices in public space is limited, however, by the lack of observational data. Here, we apply video observation as a method to examine to what extent members of the public comply with social distancing directives. DATA: Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) footage of interactions in public was collected in inner-city Amsterdam, the Netherlands. From the footage, we observed instances of people violating the 1.5-meter distance directives in the weeks before, during, and after these directives were introduced to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic.

resultsWe find that people complied with the 1.5-meter distance directives when these directives were first introduced, but that the level of compliance started to decline soon after. We also find that violation of the 1.5-meter distance directives is strongly associated with the number of people observed on the street and with non-compliance to stay-at-home directives, operationalized with large-scale aggregated location data from cell phones. All three measures correlate to a varying extent with temporal patterns in the transmission of the COVID-19 virus, temperature, COVID-19 related Google search queries, and media attention to the topic.

conclusionCompliance with 1.5 meter distance directives is short-lived and coincides with the number of people on the street and with compliance to stay-at-home directives. Potential implications of these findings are that keep- distance directives may work best in combination with stay-at-home directives and place-specific crowd-control strategies, and that the number of people on the street and community-wide mobility as captured with cell phone data offer easily measurable proxies for the extent to which people keep sufficient physical distance from others at specific times and locations.

Indexed as

Physical DistancingPublic HealthCommunications MediaCOVID-19Databases, FactualHumansNetherlandsSARS-CoV-2TemperatureVideo Recording

Identifiers

PMID33720951
PMCPMC7959357

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.