ArticleBMC public health2022
Perceived controllability of a SARS-CoV-2 infection: an investigation of intersectional differences.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe perceived ability to influence an infection with SARS-CoV-2 has an impact on compliance with protective measures. Factors influencing perceived controllability are not yet fully known. The aim of this study was to identify intersectional differences in perceived controllability. Insights into these intersectional differences could help to develop user-centered strategies to improve the acceptance of protective measures.
methodsData from the seventh wave of the German Ageing Survey (DEAS) was used to investigate differences in the population regarding the perceived controllability. The role of socio-demographic and socio-economic predictors was investigated using multivariable linear regression modeling. Intersectional differences were examined using interaction terms.
resultsInformation on 4,823 respondents aged 46 to 100 years were available, of which 50.9% were female. Migration status (yes vs. no: β = -0.27; 95%-CI = -0.48,-0.06), education level (high vs. low: β = 0.31; 95%-CI: 0.08, 0.55) and employment status (retired vs. employed: β = 0.33; 95%-CI: 0.19, 0.48) were found to be significantly influencing perceived controllability. Interaction effects were found with respect to sex and migration status, with migrant women rating their perceived controllability lower than non-migrant women (β = -0.51; 95%-CI = -0.80, -0.21), while no differences were evident between migrant and non-migrant men (β = -0.02; 95%-CI = -0.32, 0.28). Further intersectional differences were not observed.
conclusionsThe results show that intersectional differences in perceived controllability occur especially between migrant and non-migrant women. Possible causes may lie in language barriers, which in connection with lower health literacy may affect perceived controllability. Dedicated efforts to improve controllability among older adults, those with lower educational attainment and migrant women are warranted.
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.