ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023
Risk perception of COVID-19 and its related factors among centralized medical isolation groups in China.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- COVID-19 vaccine uptake and associated risk factors among first antenatal care attendees in Zambia, 2021-2022: A repeated cross-sectional study.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- The demand for online grocery shopping: COVID-induced changes in grocery shopping behavior of Canadian consumers.PloS one · 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Medical isolation is one of the most effective measures to slow the spread of the virus when dealing with a pandemic. Millions of people in China have undergone centralized medical isolation (CMI) during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aims to assess the centralized medical isolation group's COVID-19 risk perception and to explore the influencing factors. Methods: A total of 400 participants (200 who had experienced CMI and 200 who had not experienced) completed a questionnaire related to COVID-19 risk perceptions. The questionnaire was designed with the Cognitive-Experiential Self-Theory (CEST) and the Common Sense Model of Risk Perception (CSM). It adopted nine questions to measure risk perception in terms of Emotional feelings, Cognitive judgment, and Mental representation of unusual severity. Descriptive statistical analysis, correlation analysis, and multiple linear regression analysis were conducted with SPSS 26.0 software. Results: The mean risk perception score for the CMI group was 30.75, with a standard deviation of 7.503, which was significantly higher than that in the non-centralized medical isolation (NCMI) group (risk perception score was 28.2, and the standard deviation was 7.129). The results show that risk perceptions were higher for older age, risk perceptions were higher for higher education, risk perceptions were higher for those who had received the COVID-19 vaccination, and risk perceptions were higher for those who lived in a family with children. Conclusion: Risk perception is significantly higher in CMI groups than in NCMI groups. The government should draw more care to the risk perception and psychological wellbeing of the CMI group and provide extra support and assistance to the elderly and those raising younger children. In dealing with future pandemics like the COVID-19 outbreak, the government should actively guide the public to properly isolate at home and cautiously implement a CMI policy.
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.