Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34593931›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Promoting physical distancing during COVID-19: a systematic approach to compare behavioral interventions.

Tessa F Blanken, Charlotte C Tanis, Floor H Nauta, Fabian Dablander, Bonne J H Zijlstra, Rick R M Bouten, Quinten H Oostvogel, Meier J Boersma, Maya V van der Steenhoven, Frenk van Harreveld and 2 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

12 authors.

Tessa F BlankenDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, 1018 WT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. t.f.blanken@uva.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-1731-0251
Charlotte C TanisDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, 1018 WT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3466-4414
Floor H NautaDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, 1018 WT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9923-5779
Fabian DablanderDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, 1018 WT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Bonne J H ZijlstraResearch Institute of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, 1012 WX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Rick R M BoutenFocus Technologies B.V., 5657 EW, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Quinten H OostvogelFocus Technologies B.V., 5657 EW, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Meier J BoersmaSmart Distance Lab, 2353 NM, Leiderdorp, The Netherlands.
Maya V van der SteenhovenSmart Distance Lab, 2353 NM, Leiderdorp, The Netherlands.
Frenk van HarreveldDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, 1018 WT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sanne de WitDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, 1018 WT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1438-7085
Denny BorsboomDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, 1018 WT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, physical distancing behavior turned out to be key to mitigating the virus spread. Therefore, it is crucial that we understand how we can successfully alter our behavior and promote physical distancing. We present a framework to systematically assess the effectiveness of behavioral interventions to stimulate physical distancing. In addition, we demonstrate the feasibility of this framework in a large-scale natural experiment (N = 639) conducted during an art fair. In an experimental design, we varied interventions to evaluate the effect of face masks, walking directions, and immediate feedback on visitors' contacts. We represent visitors as nodes, and their contacts as links in a contact network. Subsequently, we used network modelling to test for differences in these contact networks. We find no evidence that face masks influence physical distancing, while unidirectional walking directions and buzzer feedback do positively impact physical distancing. This study offers a feasible way to optimize physical distancing interventions through scientific research. As such, the presented framework provides society with the means to directly evaluate interventions, so that policy can be based on evidence rather than conjecture.

Indexed as

BehaviorPhysical DistancingAdultCOVID-19FeedbackFemaleHumansMaleMasksMiddle AgedModels, TheoreticalPublic PolicySurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID34593931
PMCPMC8484546

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.