ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2023
Estimating perceptions of the relative COVID risk of different social-distancing behaviors from respondents' pairwise assessments.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk perception of healthcare workers in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Airborne SARS-CoV2 virus exposure, interpersonal distance, face mask and perceived risk of infection.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
How do people compare the effectiveness of different social-distancing behaviors in avoiding the spread of viral infection? During the COVID pandemic, we showed 676 online respondents in the United States, United Kingdom, and Israel 30 pairs of brief videos of acquaintances meeting. We asked respondents to indicate which video from each pair depicted greater risk of COVID infection. Their choices imply that on average, respondents considered talking 14 min longer to be as risky as standing 1 foot closer, being indoors as standing 3 feet closer, being exposed to coughs or sneezes as 3 to 4 ft closer, greeting with a hug as 7 ft closer, and with a handshake as 5 ft closer. Respondents considered properly masking as protecting the wearer and interlocutor equally, removing the mask entirely or only when talking as standing 4 to 5 ft closer but wearing it under the nose as only 1 to 2 ft closer. We provide weaker evidence on beliefs about the interaction effects of different behaviors. In a more limited, ex post analysis, we find little evidence of differences in beliefs across subpopulations.
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.