Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35913941›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Health risks of airplane boarding methods with apron buses when some passengers disregard safe social distancing.

R John Milne, Liviu-Adrian Cotfas, Camelia Delcea, Liliana Crăciun, Anca Gabriela Molănescu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 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
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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, 7 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

R John MilneDavid D. Reh School of Business, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY, United States of America.
Liviu-Adrian CotfasDepartment of Economic Informatics and Cybernetics, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania.ORCID 0000-0002-4192-183X
Camelia DelceaDepartment of Economic Informatics and Cybernetics, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania.ORCID 0000-0003-3589-1969
Liliana CrăciunDepartment of Economics and Economic Policies, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania.
Anca Gabriela MolănescuDepartment of Economics and Economic Policies, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania.
Bucharest University of Economic Studies · ROClarkson University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many airlines instituted social distancing practices to keep passengers safe during the pandemic. The practices include keeping the middle seats empty, reducing the number of passengers taking an apron bus from the terminal to the airplane, and prescribing that passengers maintain 1 m social distance of separation from other passengers in the aisle while advancing to their seats. However, not all passengers comply with a prescribed 1 m aisle social distance. Through agent-based simulations of passenger boarding when apron buses are used, we examine boarding policies adapted for the pandemic when the level of passenger compliance varies. To compare policies, we consider the duration of time that passengers are too close to other passengers while walking or standing in the aisle. We consider other health metrics from previous research and the time to complete boarding of the airplane. We find that the WilMA-Spread and Reverse-pyramid-Spread boarding methods provide favorable outcomes. Airlines should use WilMA-Spread if their primary concern is the risk to passengers while walking down the aisle and Reverse-pyramid-Spread if they want faster times to complete boarding of the airplane and reduced risk to aisle seat passengers from later boarding passengers. The level of the passengers' non-compliance with the prescribed aisle social distance can impact a health metric by up to 6.75%-depending on the boarding method and metric. However, non-compliance reduces the time to complete boarding of the airplane by up to 38.8% even though it increases the average time an individual passenger spends boarding.

Indexed as

AircraftPhysical DistancingMotor VehiclesPandemicsResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID35913941
PMCPMC9342771
OpenAlexW4289261679

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.