ArticlePloS one2022
Inequality and support for government responses to COVID-19.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phase-Based Motor Skill Acquisition in Preschool Children with Different Participation Experience in a Kinesiology Program.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2026Article
- Households' poverty and inequality after the COVID-19: Insights from panel data of face-to-face surveys in Southeast Asia.PloS one · 2026Article
- Pandemic preparedness in Vietnam: a review of health system resilience and areas for improvement.Journal of global health · 2025Review
- Incidence and Risk Factors of the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Epidemiological Approach.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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
Despite a deep literature studying the impact of inequality on policy outcomes, there has been limited effort to bring these insights into the debates about comparative support for government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. We fill this gap by analyzing rich survey data at the beginning of the pandemic in April 2020 from six countries spanning different income levels and geographical locations-China, Italy, Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We find that poorer individuals are less supportive of government responses. Furthermore, poorer individuals residing in more economically unequal countries offer even less government support. We also find that both economic and non-economic factors could affect the poor's decisions to support stringent government policies. These findings suggest that greater transfers to the poor may offer an option to help increase support for strict policies and may reduce the potential deepening of social inequalities caused by the pandemic.
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.