Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33722226›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2021

Early public adherence with and support for stay-at-home COVID-19 mitigation strategies despite adverse life impact: a transnational cross-sectional survey study in the United States and Australia.

Mark É Czeisler, Mark E Howard, Rebecca Robbins, Laura K Barger, Elise R Facer-Childs, Shantha M W Rajaratnam, Charles A Czeisler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Differences in the Perceived Likelihood of Receiving COVID-19 Vaccine.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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

7 authors.

Mark É CzeislerTurner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3800, Australia. mark.czeisler@fulbrightmail.org.ORCID 0000-0003-3100-7347
Mark E HowardTurner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3800, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7772-1496
Rebecca RobbinsDivision of Sleep and Circadian Disorders, Departments of Medicine and Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0288-2505
Laura K BargerTurner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3800, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8547-7331
Elise R Facer-ChildsTurner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3800, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4549-9266
Shantha M W Rajaratnam *Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3800, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7527-8558
Charles A Czeisler *Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3800, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7408-1849

Funding

Impact of Eliminating Extended Duration Work Shifts on Resident Health and SafetyR01OH010300 · OH · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI BARGER, LAURA K. · 2013 to 2016
$2.8M
An mHealth intervention to deliver personalized messages to increase adherence to OSA evaluation and treatment among transportation workersK01HL150339 · NHLBI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI ROBBINS, REBECCA · 2020 to 2024
$708k
NHLBI NIH HHS K01 HL150339NIOSH CDC HHS R01 OH010300NIOSH CDC HHS R01-OH-010300
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGovernments worldwide recommended unprecedented measures to contain the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). As pressure mounted to scale back measures, understanding public priorities was critical. We assessed initial public adherence with and support for stay-at-home orders in nations and cities with different SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 death rates.

methodsCross-sectional surveys were administered to representative samples of adults aged ≥18 years from regions with different SARS-CoV-2 prevalences from April 2-8, 2020. Regions included two nations [the United States (US-high prevalence) and Australia (AU-low prevalence)] and two US cities [New York City (NY-high prevalence) and Los Angeles (LA-low prevalence)]. Regional SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 prevalence (cumulative SARS-CoV-2 infections, COVID-19 deaths) as of April 8, 2020: US (363,321, 10,845), AU (5956, 45), NY (81,803, 4571), LA (7530, 198). Of 8718 eligible potential respondents, 5573 (response rate, 63.9%) completed surveys. Median age was 47 years (range, 18-89); 3039 (54.5%) were female.

resultsOf 5573 total respondents, 4560 (81.8%) reported adherence with recommended quarantine or stay-at-home policies (range of samples, 75.5-88.2%). Additionally, 29.1% of respondents screened positive for anxiety or depression symptoms (range of samples, 28.6-32.0%), with higher prevalences among those of younger age, female gender, and those in quarantine or staying at home most of the time versus those who did not report these behaviours. Despite elevated prevalences of adverse mental health symptoms and significant life disruptions, 5022 respondents (90.1%) supported government-imposed stay-at-home orders (range of samples, 88.9-93.1%). Of these, 90.8% believed orders should last at least three more weeks or until public health or government officials recommended, with support spanning the political spectrum.

conclusionsPublic adherence with COVID-19 mitigation policies was highly prevalent, in both highly-affected (US, NY) and minimally-affected regions (AU, LA). Despite disruption of respondents' lives, the vast majority supported continuation of extended stay-at-home orders. Despite common support, these two countries diverged in stringent mitigation implementation, which may have contributed to subsequent outcomes. These results reveal the importance of surveillance of public support for and adherence with such policies during the COVID-19 pandemic and for future infectious disease outbreaks.

Indexed as

Life StylePublic OpinionQuarantineAdolescentAdultAgedAustraliaCommunicable Disease ControlCOVID-19Cross-Sectional StudiesDisease OutbreaksFemaleHumansLos AngelesMaleMental HealthCoronavirusCOVID-19InsomniaMental healthMitigation strategiesPandemicPublic health policyQualtricsSARS-CoV-2Stay-at-home orders

Identifiers

PMID33722226
PMCPMC7957462

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.