Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36935718›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2023

Understanding public support for COVID-19 pandemic mitigation measures over time: Does it wear out?

John B F De Wit, Denise T D de Ridder, Wijnand van den Boom, Floor M Kroese, Bas van den Putte, F Marijn Stok, Mariken Leurs, Marijn de Bruin

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

John B F De WitDepartment of Interdisciplinary Social Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Denise T D de RidderDepartment of Social, Health and Organizational Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Wijnand van den BoomCorona Behavioural Unit, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, Netherlands.
Floor M KroeseDepartment of Social, Health and Organizational Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Bas van den PutteAmsterdam School of Communication Research, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
F Marijn StokDepartment of Interdisciplinary Social Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Mariken LeursCorona Behavioural Unit, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, Netherlands.
Marijn de BruinCorona Behavioural Unit, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, Netherlands.
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment · NLUtrecht University · NLRadboud University Medical Center · NLUniversity of Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: COVID-19 mitigation measures intend to protect public health, but their adverse psychological, social, and economic effects weaken public support. Less favorable trade-offs may especially weaken support for more restrictive measures. Support for mitigation measures may also differ between population subgroups who experience different benefits and costs, and decrease over time, a phenomenon termed "pandemic fatigue." Methods: We examined self-reported support for COVID-19 mitigation measures in the Netherlands over 12 consecutives waves of data collection between April 2020 and May 2021 in an open population cohort study. Participants were recruited through community panels of the 25 regional public health services, and through links to the online surveys advertised on social media. The 54,010 unique participants in the cohort study on average participated in 4 waves of data collection. Most participants were female (65%), middle-aged [57% (40-69 years)], highly educated (57%), not living alone (84%), residing in an urban area (60%), and born in the Netherlands (95%). Results: COVID-19 mitigation measures implemented in the Netherlands remained generally well-supported over time [all scores >3 on 5-point scale ranging 1 (low)-5 (high)]. During the whole period studied, support was highest for personal hygiene measures, quarantine and wearing face masks, high but somewhat lower for not shaking hands, testing and self-isolation, and restricting social contacts, and lowest for limiting visitors at home, and not traveling abroad. Women and higher educated people were more supportive of some mitigation measures than men and lower educated people. Older people were more supportive of more restrictive measures than younger people, and support for more socially restrictive measures decreased most over time in higher educated people or in younger people. Conclusions: This study found no support for pandemic fatigue in terms of a gradual decline in support for all mitigation measures in the first year of the pandemic. Rather, findings suggest that support for mitigation measures reflects a balancing of benefits and cost, which may change over time, and differ between measures and population subgroups.

Indexed as

COVID-19AgedCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Self ReportCOVID-19health behavior (MeSH)health protectionmitigation measurespandemic fatiguepublic support

Identifiers

PMID36935718
PMCPMC10020646
OpenAlexW4323045783

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read49
table measurements read32
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.