Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35505825›Full record

ArticleActa astronautica2022

Isolation and confinement due to the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons for human spaceflight.

Katya Arquilla, Andrea K Webb, Allison P Anderson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta astronautica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

3 authors.

Katya ArquillaAnn and H. J. Smead Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, United States.
Andrea K WebbThe Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc, United States.
Allison P AndersonAnn and H. J. Smead Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Astronauts live and work in isolated, confined, extreme (ICE) environments that create both high stress and the need for high performance. The COVID-19 pandemic created ICE-like conditions across the globe by confining people to their homes under the ever-present threat of disease. Our goal is to understand the impact of prior experience in ICE on coping, using the pandemic as a pseudo space analog environment. Methods: We administered a survey three times with 7 days between administrations. A total of 82 participants completed all three survey sessions, and these participants were divided into three groups for analysis. The first group is those with prior experience in an ICE environment (n = 17; 7F/10 M), the second is those aged 30-55 with a master's or doctoral degree and without prior experience (n = 22; 10F/12 M), and the third is the general population (n = 43; 27F/16 M). Linear mixed models were used for statistical analysis of the results, given the unequal sample sizes. Results: The experienced group did not show healthier mental health scores than the astronaut-like group, but both groups displayed higher scores than the general population. However, work productivity scores for the experienced group were higher on average than the other two groups. Discussion: Results suggest that prior experience in ICE may improve the capability to maintain productivity-corresponding to the idea of resilience. However, experience may not improve mental health maintenance, suggesting that other approaches are needed to prepare astronauts for the mental health stressors of long-duration exploration missions.

Indexed as

ConfinedExtreme (ICE) environmentsIsolatedResilienceSpace analogSpaceflight psychology

Identifiers

PMID35505825
PMCPMC9050187

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.