Observational studyJMIR public health and surveillance2021
Determinants of Shielding Behavior During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Associations With Well-being Among National Health Service Patients: Longitudinal Observational Study.
Observational study in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of the Physical Distancing Scale for COVID-19 Avoidance (PDS-C19©) in immunocompromised and non-immunocompromised individuals and its validation in the EAGLE Study.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Article
- Assessing the association of physical distancing to avoid COVID-19 with health-related quality of life in immunocompromised adolescents: results from the cross-sectional observational EAGLE study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Assessing the association of physical distancing to avoid COVID-19 with health-related quality of life in immunocompromised adults: results from the cross-sectional observational EAGLE study.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Features influencing the health and economic impact of preventing COVID-19 in immunocompromised individuals.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- The Association Between Physical Distancing Behaviors to Avoid COVID-19 and Health-Related Quality of Life in Immunocompromised and Nonimmunocompromised Individuals: Patient-Informed Protocol for the Observational, Cross-Sectional EAGLE Study.JMIR research protocols · 2024Observational
- Psychosocial Health Among Young Adults With Kidney Failure: A Longitudinal Follow-up of the SPEAK (Surveying Patients Experiencing Young Adult Kidney Failure) Study.Kidney medicine · 2024Article
- Estimating the Health-Related Quality of Life Benefit of Prophylactic Treatment for COVID-19 in Immunocompromised People: A Multimethod Valuation Study.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2024Article
- The State-of-the-Art of Patient Portals: Adapting to External Factors, Addressing Barriers, and Innovating.Applied clinical informatics · 2023Review
- Caregiver Perceptions of Children's and Adolescents' Psychosocial Functioning During the Stringent COVID-19 Lockdown Restrictions in Shanghai: Cross-sectional Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2023Article
- Mental health and life satisfaction among those advised to shield during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a secondary analysis of the Understanding Society longitudinal study.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Risk of severe COVID-19 infection in persons with diabetes during the first and second waves in Denmark: A nationwide cohort study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Article
- Facemask Usage Among People With Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Participatory Project.International journal of public health · 2021Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe UK National Health Service (NHS) classified 2.2 million people as clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) during the first wave of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, advising them to "shield" (to not leave home for any reason).
objectiveThe aim of this study was to measure the determinants of shielding behavior and associations with well-being in a large NHS patient population for informing future health policy.
methodsPatients contributing to an ongoing longitudinal participatory epidemiology study (Longitudinal Effects on Wellbeing of the COVID-19 Pandemic [LoC-19], n=42,924) received weekly email invitations to complete questionnaires (17-week shielding period starting April 9, 2020) within their NHS personal electronic health record. Question items focused on well-being. Participants were stratified into four groups by self-reported CEV status (qualifying condition) and adoption of shielding behavior (baselined at week 1 or 2). The distribution of CEV criteria was reported alongside situational variables and univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Longitudinal trends in physical and mental well-being were displayed graphically. Free-text responses reporting variables impacting well-being were semiquantified using natural language processing. In the lead up to a second national lockdown (October 23, 2020), a follow-up questionnaire evaluated subjective concern if further shielding was advised.
resultsThe study included 7240 participants. In the CEV group (n=2391), 1133 (47.3%) assumed shielding behavior at baseline, compared with 633 (13.0%) in the non-CEV group (n=4849). CEV participants who shielded were more likely to be Asian (odds ratio [OR] 2.02, 95% CI 1.49-2.76), female (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.05-1.45), older (OR per year increase 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02), living in a home with an outdoor space (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.06-1.70) or three to four other inhabitants (three: OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.15-1.94; four: OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.10-2.01), or solid organ transplant recipients (OR 2.85, 95% CI 2.18-3.77), or have severe chronic lung disease (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.30-2.04). Receipt of a government letter advising shielding was reported in 1115 (46.6%) CEV participants and 180 (3.7%) non-CEV participants, and was associated with adopting shielding behavior (OR 3.34, 95% CI 2.82-3.95 and OR 2.88, 95% CI 2.04-3.99, respectively). In CEV participants, shielding at baseline was associated with a lower rating of mental well-being and physical well-being. Similar results were found for non-CEV participants. Concern for well-being if future shielding was required was most prevalent among CEV participants who had originally shielded.
conclusionsFuture health policy must balance the potential protection from COVID-19 against our findings that shielding negatively impacted well-being and was adopted in many in whom it was not indicated and variably in whom it was indicated. This therefore also requires clearer public health messaging and support for well-being if shielding is to be advised in future pandemic scenarios.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.