Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35260455›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Public acceptability of non-pharmaceutical interventions to control a pandemic in the UK: a discrete choice experiment.

Luis Enrique Loría-Rebolledo, Mandy Ryan, Verity Watson, Mesfin G Genie, Ruben Andreas Sakowsky, Daniel Powell, Shantini Paranjothy

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Luis Enrique Loría-RebolledoHealth Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK luis.loria@abdn.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-1391-6478
Mandy RyanHealth Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Verity WatsonHealth Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Mesfin G GenieHealth Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1744-4666
Ruben Andreas SakowskyDepartment of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6893-9220
Daniel PowellHealth Psychology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4995-6057
Shantini ParanjothyHealth Data Science Research Centre, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
University of Aberdeen · GBUniversitätsmedizin Göttingen · DE

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HERU1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo understand how individuals trade off between features of non-pharmaceutical interventions (eg, lockdowns) to control a pandemic across the four nations of the UK.

designA survey that included a discrete choice experiment. The survey design was informed using policy documents, social media analysis and input from remote think-aloud interviews with members of the public (n=23).

settingA nationwide survey across the four nations of the UK using an online panel between 29 October and 12 December 2020.

participantsIndividuals who are over 18 years old. A total of 4120 adults completed the survey (1112 in England, 848 in Northern Ireland, 1143 in Scotland and 1098 in Wales). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Adult's preferences for, and trade-offs between, type of lockdown restrictions, length of lockdown, postponement of routine healthcare, excess deaths, impact on the ability to buy things and unemployment.

resultsThe majority of adults are willing to accept higher excess deaths if this means lockdowns that are less strict, shorter and do not postpone routine healthcare. On average, respondents in England were willing to accept a higher increase in excess deaths to have less strict lockdown restrictions introduced compared with Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, respectively. In all four countries, one out of five respondents were willing to reduce excess deaths at all costs.

conclusionsThe majority of the UK population is willing to accept the increase in excess deaths associated with introducing less strict lockdown restrictions. The acceptability of different restriction scenarios varies according to the features of the lockdown and across countries. Governments can use information about trade-off preferences to inform the introduction of different lockdown restriction levels and design compensation policies that maximise societal welfare.

Indexed as

COVID-19Social MediaAdolescentAdultHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2WalesCOVID-19health economicshealth policypublic health

Identifiers

PMID35260455
PMCPMC8905974
OpenAlexW4220840312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.