Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36217102›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2022

The U.S. COVID-19 County Policy Database: a novel resource to support pandemic-related research.

Rita Hamad, Kristin A Lyman, Feng Lin, Madelaine F Modrow, Pelin Ozluk, Kristen M J Azar, Amie Goodin, Carmen R Isasi, Heather E Kitzman, Sara J Knight and 11 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Homelessness, Politics, and Policy: Predicting Spatial Variation in COVID-19 Cases and Deaths.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    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

21 authors.

Rita HamadDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California San Francisco, 995 Potrero Avenue, Building 80, Ward 83, San Francisco, CA, 94110, USA. rita.hamad@ucsf.edu.
Kristin A LymanLouisiana Public Health Institute, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Feng LinDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Madelaine F ModrowDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Pelin OzlukEnterprise Health Services Research, Anthem, Inc, Wilmington, Delaware, USA.
Kristen M J AzarDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Amie GoodinPharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Safety, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Carmen R IsasiDepartment of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA.
Heather E KitzmanBaylor Scott and White Health, Dallas, TX, USA.
Sara J KnightDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Epidemiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Gregory M MarcusDivision of Cardiology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Cheryl N McMahill-WalravenClinical Trial Services, CVS Health, Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, USA.
Paul MeissnerMontefiore Medical Center , Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA.
Vinit NairPractice Research Network, Humana Healthcare Research, Sharon, MA, USA.
Emily C O'BrienDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Jeffrey E OlginDivision of Cardiology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Noah D PeyserDivision of Cardiology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Gosia SylwestrzakEnterprise Health Services Research, Anthem, Inc, Wilmington, Delaware, USA.
Natasha WilliamsNew York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York City, NY, USA.
Mark J PletcherDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Thomas CartonLouisiana Public Health Institute, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.

Funding

CTSA Administrative Supplement for Informatics Core: A novel AI/ML system to predict respiratory failure and ARDS in Covid-19 patientsUL1TR002556 · NCATS · ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, INC · PI KELLER, MARLA J, KIM, MIMI Y · 2018 to 2022
$26.7M
Utah Center for Clinical and Translational ScienceUL1TR002538 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI HESS, RACHEL, MAJERSIK, JENNIFER JUHL · 2018 to 2022
$26.0M
The Impacts of County-Level COVID- 19 -Related Public Health and Social Policies on Racial/Ethnic and Socioeconomic Disparities in Mental Health and Healthcare UtilizationU01MH129968 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI HAMAD, RITA · 2021 to 2025
$3.4M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002538NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002556NIMH NIH HHS U01 MH129968
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is increasingly recognized that policies have played a role in both alleviating and exacerbating the health and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. There has been limited systematic evaluation of variation in U.S. local COVID-19-related policies. This study introduces the U.S. COVID-19 County Policy (UCCP) Database, whose objective is to systematically gather, characterize, and assess variation in U.S. county-level COVID-19-related policies.

methodsIn January-March 2021, we collected an initial wave of cross-sectional data from government and media websites for 171 counties in 7 states on 22 county-level COVID-19-related policies within 3 policy domains that are likely to affect health: (1) containment/closure, (2) economic support, and (3) public health. We characterized the presence and comprehensiveness of policies using univariate analyses. We also examined the correlation of policies with one another using bivariate Spearman's correlations. Finally, we examined geographical variation in policies across and within states.

resultsThere was substantial variation in the presence and comprehensiveness of county policies during January-March 2021. For containment and closure policies, the percent of counties with no restrictions ranged from 0% (for public events) to more than half for public transportation (67.8%), hair salons (52.6%), and religious gatherings (52.0%). For economic policies, 76.6% of counties had housing support, while 64.9% had utility relief. For public health policies, most were comprehensive, with 70.8% of counties having coordinated public information campaigns, and 66.7% requiring masks outside the home at all times. Correlations between containment and closure policies tended to be positive and moderate (i.e., coefficients 0.4-0.59). There was variation within and across states in the number and comprehensiveness of policies.

conclusionsThis study introduces the UCCP Database, presenting granular data on local governments' responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. We documented substantial variation within and across states on a wide range of policies at a single point in time. By making these data publicly available, this study supports future research that can leverage this database to examine how policies contributed to and continue to influence pandemic-related health and socioeconomic outcomes and disparities. The UCCP database is available online and will include additional time points for 2020-2021 and additional counties nationwide.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsCross-Sectional StudiesHumansPolicyPublic HealthUnited StatesCOVID-19 pandemicEconomic supportHealth policyPolicy evaluation

Identifiers

PMID36217102
PMCPMC9548418

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.