ArticleBMJ open2022
Social mixing patterns in the UK following the relaxation of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, July-August 2020: a cross-sectional online survey.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Health inequalities in risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in England's second wave: population-based cross-sectional analysis from the REACT-1 study.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Contact patterns of UK home delivery drivers and their use of protective measures during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study.Occupational and environmental medicine · 2023Article
- Occupational inequalities in the prevalence of COVID-19: A longitudinal observational study of England, August 2020 to January 2021.PloS one · 2023Observational
- Changing patterns of SARS-CoV-2 infection through Delta and Omicron waves by vaccination status, previous infection and neighbourhood deprivation: a cohort analysis of 2.7 M people.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Article
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
Abstract
objectivesTo quantify and characterise non-household contact and to identify the effect of shielding and isolating on contact patterns.
designCross-sectional study. SETTING AND
participantsAnyone living in the UK was eligible to take part in the study. We recorded 5143 responses to the online questionnaire between 28 July 2020 and 14 August 2020. OUTCOME MEASURES: Our primary outcome was the daily non-household contact rate of participants. Secondary outcomes were propensity to leave home over a 7 day period, whether contacts had occurred indoors or outdoors locations visited, the furthest distance travelled from home, ability to socially distance and membership of support bubble.
resultsThe mean rate of non-household contacts per person was 2.9 d
conclusionThe daily rate of non-household interactions remained lower than prepandemic levels measured by other studies, suggesting continued adherence to social distancing guidelines. Individuals attending a workplace in-person or employed as healthcare professionals were less likely to maintain social distance and had a higher non-household contact rate, possibly increasing their infection risk. Shielding and self-isolating individuals required greater support to enable them to follow the government guidelines and reduce non-household contact and therefore their risk of infection.
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.