ArticleBMJ open2023
Older people's experience of the partial lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic in Switzerland: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate older people's experience of a COVID-19 partial lockdown (16 March-11 May 2020) in Lausanne, Switzerland. SETTING AND
participantsCommunity-dwelling participants of the Lausanne cohort (Lc65+) in 2020, aged 71-86 years (n=2642). DESIGN AND OUTCOME: This cross-sectional study was nested within the Lc65+ longitudinal study. A specific COVID-19 questionnaire was sent on 17 April 2020 to evaluate participants' experience of the lockdown (outcome). Multinomial logistic regression models were used to determine the sociodemographic, living environment, health and social factors associated.
resultsOut of 2642 participants, 67.8% described the lockdown as 'somewhat' difficult (reference group), 21.5% as 'not at all' difficult (positive) and 10.7% as 'very or extremely' difficult (negative). The relative risk of a positive experience was higher in participants living alone (relative risk ratio, RRR=1.93, 95% CI 1.52 to 2.46) or in a house (RRR=1.49, 1.03 to 2.16); lower in those who reported fear of falling (RRR=0.68, 0.54 to 0.86), functional difficulties (RRR=0.78, 0.61 to 0.99), feeling of loneliness (RRR=0.67, 0.49 to 0.91), unfamiliarity with communication technologies (RRR=0.69, 0.52 to 0.91), usual social support (RRR=0.71, 0.50 to 0.93), previous participation in group activities (RRR=0.74, 0.59 to 0.92) and among women (RRR=0.75, 0.59 to 0.95). The relative risk of a negative experience was higher in participants with fear of falling (RRR=1.52, 1.07 to 2.15), and lower in those who had a terrace/garden (RRR=0.66, 0.44 to 0.99) and owned a dog (RRR=0.32, 0.11 to 0.90).
conclusionsOnly one in 10 participants experienced the lockdown as very or extremely difficult. Specific interventions targeting vulnerability factors, such as fear of falling, could lessen the impact of any future similar situation.
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.