ArticlePublic health2022
Coping strategies during legally enforced quarantine and their association to psychological distress level: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychological outcomes of depression after legally enforced quarantine during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2025Article
- SARS-CoV-2 Quarantine Mandated by Contact Tracing: Burden and Infection Rate Among Close Contacts in Zurich, Switzerland, 2020-2021.International journal of public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe non-pharmacological measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic may lead to considerable psychological distress. The aim of the CoCo-Fakt study was to investigate possible coping strategies and their effects on psychological distress during legally enforced quarantine of infected persons (IPs) and their close contacts (CPs). STUDY
designThis was a cross-sectional cohort study.
methodsFrom 12 December 2020 to 6 January 2021, all IPs and their CPs (n = 8232) registered by the public health department (Cologne, Germany) were surveyed online. Psychosocial distress and coping were measured using sum scores; free-text answers related to specific strategies were subsequently categorised.
resultsPsychosocial distress was higher in IPs than in CPs (P < .001). Although the mean coping score did not differ between both groups, it was influenced by the reason for quarantine (IP vs CP) besides gender, age, socio-economic status, living situation, psychological distress, resilience, physical activity and eating behaviour. This final regression model explained 25.9% of the variance. Most participants used active coping strategies, such as contact with the social environment, a positive attitude and hobbies.
conclusionsAlthough psychological distress was higher in IPs than in CPs during the quarantine period, the mean coping score did not differ. The strategies most frequently used by IPs and CPs were activating social networks, a healthy lifestyle and professional support systems, such as the health department helpline. Appropriate advice should be implemented to prevent long-term psychological consequences when supporting affected people.
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.