Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35636051›Full record

ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2022

Legal restrictions and mitigation strategies amongst a disabled population during COVID-19.

Tarandeep S Kang, Robin Goodwin

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 93% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tarandeep S KangDepartment of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom. Electronic address: Tarandeep.Kang@warwick.ac.uk.
Robin GoodwinDepartment of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
University of Warwick · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The impact of physical disability on protective behaviors during COVID-19 has been little studied. This retrospective study compared the 699 the self-declared behaviors of 699 people with disabilities before and after the relaxation of COVID-19 restrictions in England. We found that people with disabilities in England showed high compliance with protective behaviors and mitigation strategies during a period of legal restrictions. Following the lifting of restrictions, respondents engaged in less social mixing, fewer distancing and hygiene behaviors and were less likely to use face coverings. Hierarchical regressions revealed that socio-economic status, age, and gender moderated protective behaviors: while those with higher socio-economic status were more relaxed with regard to hygiene and distancing behaviors, they were more cautious about mixing with others after the end of restrictions. Age, (male) gender, and being unvaccinated were positively associated with relaxation in the use of facemasks in public places, not needing a carer with fewer out-of-home visits. Taken together these findings suggest that the removal of restrictions had an unequal impact on the population of England, placing a disproportionate burden on some people with disabilities.

Indexed as

COVID-19Persons with DisabilitiesEnglandHumansMaleRetrospective StudiesCOVID-19Legal restrictionsPhysical disabilityProtective measuresVulnerability

Identifiers

PMID35636051
PMCPMC9125984
OpenAlexW4281393312

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.