Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36901607›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023

A Precautionary Tale: Individual Decision Making in the Time of COVID-19.

Ann Pearman, MacKenzie L Hughes, Clara W Coblenz, Emily L Smith, Shevaun D Neupert

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Ann PearmanDepartment of Psychiatry, MetroHealth Medical Center, 2500 MetroHealth Drive, Cleveland, OH 44109, USA.
MacKenzie L HughesSchool of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3512-8413
Clara W CoblenzSchool of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.
Emily L SmithDepartment of Psychology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7650, USA.
Shevaun D NeupertDepartment of Psychology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7650, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5994-3060

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Precaution taking is an important part of managing COVID-19 and has been since the start of the pandemic. Guided by the Health Belief Model, two studies conducted during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic aimed to identify possible individual difference predictors of precautionary actions. Study 1 was an online, cross-sectional study using 763 adults aged 20-79 years old. Study 2, a 30-day daily diary study, examined daily precautions in 261 persons over the age of 55 years old. Study 1 and Study 2 indicated that COVID-19 knowledge predicted precautionary behaviors. Multilevel models from Study 2 indicated that daily increases in in-person interactions and leaving home were associated with decreases in precautions, but increases in disruption to routine were associated with increases in precautions. In both studies, including concurrent and lagged models in Study 2, significant interactions between information seeking and perceived risk suggested higher information seeking was related to higher precautions for those who consider themselves low risk. Findings highlight the burden of daily precautions and potentially modifiable factors of engagement in precautions.

Indexed as

COVID-19AdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesDecision MakingHumansMiddle AgedPandemicsSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultCOVID-19daily diarydecision makinghealthperceived risk

Identifiers

PMID36901607
PMCPMC10001963

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
reference markers read5
measurements read6
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.