Reactions for actions? Trust in protective behaviors and safeguarding measures in the early phase of the Covid-19 pandemic in Sweden.

Elin M Andersson, Margareta Norberg

Open access · goldAbstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing papers in PubMed

2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field

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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

Pandemic preparedness improves national-level SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality data completeness: a cross-country ecologic analysis.Population health metrics · 2024
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Elin M AnderssonDepartment of Psychology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.

Margareta NorbergDepartment of Epidemiology and Global Health, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.

Umeå University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To minimize the spread of Covid-19, changing every-day behavior has been key. Trust in the effectiveness of individual protective measures (response efficacy) and confidence in collective safeguarding measures (strategy efficacy), offers an incitement for acting adequately. Efficacy beliefs of protective measures might be especially relevant to study in the Swedish context, since Sweden, in contrast to countries facing hard lock-downs, launched safeguarding measures based on individual responsibility and voluntary actions. We aimed to assess associations between on the one hand, response efficacy and strategy efficacy, and on the other hand, propensity for behavior change and support of protective measures. Furthermore, to assess associations between the efficacy beliefs and comprehension of and confidence in information about the virus, prosocial beliefs and worry of Covid-19. Reactions were assessed in a Swedish sample close in time to experiences via the SEMA

Indexed as

COVID-19Health behaviorPrevention & controlProtective behaviorsResponse efficacySafeguarding measuresStrategy efficacySweden

Identifiers

PMID36785742

DOI10.1016/j.pmedr.2023.102133

PMCPMC9908563

OpenAlexW4319786243

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.