Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34219632›Full record

ArticleHealth economics, policy, and law2022

Belgium's response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Jeroen Luyten, Erik Schokkaert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health economics, policy, and law, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. COVID-19 policy analysis for 10 European countries.Zeitschrift fur Gesundheitswissenschaften = Journal of public health · 2022
    Article
  13. 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

2 authors.

Jeroen LuytenLeuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6398-4025
Erik SchokkaertDepartment of Economics, University of Leuven, Naamsestraat 69, B-3000Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0981-3449

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Belgium is often seen as an outlier in the international experience with the coronavirus disease 2019. We summarize the unfolding of the pandemic in Belgium from February to December 2020, discuss the countermeasures that were implemented and provide some explanations why the numbers indicate a stronger pandemic in Belgium than in its neighbouring countries. To some extent, the seemingly poor performance of Belgium is a measurement artefact. Yet, there were indeed particular factors in Belgium that unnecessarily increased the toll of the pandemic. In the first wave insufficient priority was given to protect care homes. The second wave was larger than necessary due to a failure to timely implement restrictive measures. The latter can, at least partly, be explained by a unique political situation: a temporary, minority government in the middle of a major crisis.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsBelgiumGovernmentHumansSARS-CoV-2BelgiumCOVID-19mortalitypolitical decision-making

Identifiers

PMID34219632
PMCPMC8280466

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.