Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34559863›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2021

Social distancing in America: Understanding long-term adherence to COVID-19 mitigation recommendations.

Christopher P Reinders Folmer, Megan A Brownlee, Adam D Fine, Emmeke B Kooistra, Malouke E Kuiper, Elke H Olthuis, Anne Leonore de Bruijn, Benjamin van Rooij

Abstract readClinical TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

8 authors.

Christopher P Reinders FolmerAmsterdam Law School, Center for Law and Behavior, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1340-2300
Megan A BrownleeAmsterdam Law School, Center for Law and Behavior, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Adam D FineSchool of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona, United States of America.
Emmeke B KooistraAmsterdam Law School, Center for Law and Behavior, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Malouke E KuiperAmsterdam Law School, Center for Law and Behavior, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1827-7126
Elke H OlthuisAmsterdam Law School, Center for Law and Behavior, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0097-7519
Anne Leonore de BruijnAmsterdam Law School, Center for Law and Behavior, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Benjamin van RooijAmsterdam Law School, Center for Law and Behavior, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A crucial question in the governance of infectious disease outbreaks is how to ensure that people continue to adhere to mitigation measures for the longer duration. The present paper examines this question by means of a set of cross-sectional studies conducted in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, in May, June, and July of 2020. Using stratified samples that mimic the demographic characteristics of the U.S. population, it seeks to understand to what extent Americans continued to adhere to social distancing measures in the period after the first lockdown ended. Moreover, it seeks to uncover which variables sustained (or undermined) adherence across this period. For this purpose, we examined a broad range of factors, relating to people's (1) knowledge and understanding of the mitigation measures, (2) perceptions of their costs and benefits, (3) perceptions of legitimacy and procedural justice, (4) personal factors, (5) social environment, and (6) practical circumstances. Our findings reveal that adherence was chiefly shaped by three major factors: respondents adhered more when they (a) had greater practical capacity to adhere, (b) morally agreed more with the measures, and (c) perceived the virus as a more severe health threat. Adherence was shaped to a lesser extent by impulsivity, knowledge of social distancing measures, opportunities for violating, personal costs, and descriptive social norms. The results also reveal, however, that adherence declined across this period, which was partly explained by changes in people's moral alignment, threat perceptions, knowledge, and perceived social norms. These findings show that adherence originates from a broad range of factors that develop dynamically across time. Practically these insights help to improve pandemic governance, as well as contributing theoretically to the study of compliance and the way that rules come to shape behavior.

Indexed as

PandemicsPatient CompliancePhysical DistancingAdultCOVID-19FemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPractice Guidelines as TopicUnited States

Identifiers

PMID34559863
PMCPMC8462713

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.