Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35962987›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of public health2022

A regression discontinuity analysis of the social distancing recommendations for older adults in Sweden during COVID-19.

Carl Bonander, Debora Stranges, Johanna Gustavsson, Matilda Almgren, Malin Inghammar, Mahnaz Moghaddassi, Anton Nilsson, Joan Capdevila Pujol, Claire Steves, Paul W Franks and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The effect of age-specific stay-at-home recommendation on healthcare utilization: Evidence from Finland's COVID-19 policy.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

14 authors.

Carl BonanderHealth Economics & Policy, School of Public Health & Community Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-1189-9950
Debora StrangesDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-1782-8563
Johanna GustavssonCentre for Societal Risk Research, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden.
Matilda AlmgrenClinical Studies Sweden, Forum South, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Malin InghammarDepartment of Clinical Sciences Lund, Section for Infection Medicine, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Mahnaz MoghaddassiDepartment of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Social Medicine and Global Health, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.
Anton NilssonDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-5774-7189
Joan Capdevila PujolZOE Limited, London, UK.
Claire StevesDepartment of Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology, King's College London, London, UK.
Paul W FranksDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Lund University Diabetes Center, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.
Maria F GomezDepartment of Clinical Sciences in Malmö, Diabetic Complications Unit, Lund University Diabetes Centre, Lund, Sweden.
Tove FallDepartment of Medical Sciences, Molecular Epidemiology, and Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Jonas BjörkDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-1883-2000
COVID Symptom Study Sweden

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis article investigates the impact of a non-mandatory and age-specific social distancing recommendation on isolation behaviours and disease outcomes in Sweden during the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic (March to July 2020). The policy stated that people aged 70 years or older should avoid crowded places and contact with people outside the household.

methodsWe used a regression discontinuity design-in combination with self-reported isolation data from COVID Symptom Study Sweden (n = 96 053; age range: 39-79 years) and national register data (age range: 39-100+ years) on severe COVID-19 disease (hospitalization or death, n = 21 804) and confirmed cases (n = 48 984)-to estimate the effects of the policy.

resultsOur primary analyses showed a sharp drop in the weekly number of visits to crowded places (-13%) and severe COVID-19 cases (-16%) at the 70-year threshold. These results imply that the age-specific recommendations prevented approximately 1800-2700 severe COVID-19 cases, depending on model specification.

conclusionsIt seems that the non-mandatory, age-specific recommendations helped control COVID-19 disease during the first wave of the pandemic in Sweden, as opposed to not implementing a social distancing policy aimed at older adults. Our study provides empirical data on how populations may react to non-mandatory, age-specific social distancing policies in the face of a novel virus.

Indexed as

COVID-19AdultAgedAged, 80 and overHumansMiddle AgedPandemicsPhysical DistancingSARS-CoV-2Sweden

Identifiers

PMID35962987
PMCPMC9384721

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.