Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36962102›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2022

Acceptability of government measures against COVID-19 pandemic in Senegal: A mixed methods study.

Valéry Ridde, Babacar Kane, Ibrahima Gaye, Mouhamadou Faly Ba, Amadou Diallo, Emmanuel Bonnet, Zoumana Traoré, Adama Faye

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Challenges in Implementing the National Health Response to COVID-19 in Senegal.Global implementation research and applications · 2022
    Article
  17. 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.

Valéry RiddeCEPED, IRD-Université de Paris, ERL INSERM SAGESUD, Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9299-8266
Babacar KaneInstitut de Santé et Développement (ISED), Université Cheikh Anta Diop, Dakar, Senegal.
Ibrahima GayeInstitut de Santé et Développement (ISED), Université Cheikh Anta Diop, Dakar, Senegal.
Mouhamadou Faly BaInstitut de Santé et Développement (ISED), Université Cheikh Anta Diop, Dakar, Senegal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1898-738X
Amadou DialloInstitut de Santé et Développement (ISED), Université Cheikh Anta Diop, Dakar, Senegal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1233-496X
Emmanuel BonnetIRD (French Institute for Research on Sustainable Development) Résiliences / PRODIG, French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development, Bondy, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6735-5330
Zoumana TraoréCloudlyYours, Morangis, France.
Adama FayeInstitut de Santé et Développement (ISED), Université Cheikh Anta Diop, Dakar, Senegal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While the first case of COVID-19 was declared on March 2 2020 in Senegal, the government banned the attendance of places of worship on 14 March, as a first measure. On March 23, it introduced a curfew, a ban on movement between regions, and the closure of markets. The objective of this study is to measure and understand the acceptability of these four governmental measures as well as the level of public trust in the state to fight the pandemic. We carried out a mixed-method research. The acceptability variables were defined using the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA). At the quantitative level, we carried out a telephone survey (June/July 2020) at the national level (n = 813) with a sampling strategy by marginal quotas. We conducted a qualitative survey (August/September 2020) with a nested sample (n = 30). The results show a relatively high acceptability of the measures but a heterogeneity of responses. People considered curfews to be much more important (85.7% [83.2%; 88.0%]) than the closure of places of worship (55.4%; [51.9%; 58.7%]), which is least in line with the values and positive affective attitude. Several positive unintended effects of the curfew were stated (security and social/family cohesion). People over the age of 60 have more confidence in the government to fight the pandemic than people under the age of 25, although not significant (7.72 ± 3.12 vs. 7.07 ± 3.11, p = 0.1); and they are more in favour of the closure of places of worship. The more regions are affected by the pandemic, the less confidence respondents report in the government and the less they perceive the measures as effective. The results confirm the importance of government communication and trust in the state to strengthen the acceptability of pandemic measures. Important differences in acceptability show the need to adapt measures and their explanations, instead of unqualified universal action.

Identifiers

PMID36962102
PMCPMC10021345

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
reference markers read1
measurements read22
identifiers read8
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.