ArticleActa astronautica2022
Isolation and confinement due to the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons for human spaceflight.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Neural changes in microgravity: Investigating the effects of aerospace environments.IBRO neuroscience reports · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.