Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37095763›Full record

ArticleEthics, medicine, and public health2023

Non-pharmaceutical interventions in the State of Georgia: Economic implications.

R C White, R Luo, R Rothenberg

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ethics, medicine, and public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

R C WhiteGeorgia State University, School of Public Health, Department of Population Health Sciences, 140, Decatur Street SE, Atlanta, Georgia, 30303, USA.
R LuoGeorgia State University, School of Public Health, Department of Population Health Sciences, 140, Decatur Street SE, Atlanta, Georgia, 30303, USA.
R RothenbergGeorgia State University, School of Public Health, Department of Population Health Sciences, 140, Decatur Street SE, Atlanta, Georgia, 30303, USA.
Georgia State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: As Covid-19 spread rapidly, many countries implemented a strict shelter-in-place to "flatten the curve" and build capacity to treat in the absence of effective preventative therapies or treatments. Policymakers and public health officials must balance the positive health effects of lockdowns with economic, social, and psychological costs. This study examined the economic impacts of state and county level restrictions during the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic for two regions of Georgia. Methods: Taking unemployment data from the Opportunity Insights Economic Tracker with mandate information from various sites, we examined trends before and after a mandate's implementation and relaxation using joinpoint regression. Results: We found mandates with the largest impact on unemployment claims rates were the shelters-in-place (SIPs) and closures of non-essential businesses. Specific to our study, mandates had an effect where first implemented, i.e., if the state implemented an SIP after the county, the state-wide SIP had no additional measurable effect on claims rates. School closures had a consistent impact on increasing unemployment claims rates, but to a lesser degree than SIPs or business closures. While closing businesses did have a deleterious effect, implementing social distancing for businesses and restricting gatherings did not. Notably, the Coastal region was less affected than the Metro Area. Additionally, our findings indicate that race ethnicity may be a larger predictor of adverse economic effects than education, poverty level, or geographic area. Conclusions: Our findings coincided with other studies in some areas but showed differences in what indicators may best predict adverse effects and that coastal communities may not always be as impacted as other regions in a state. Ultimately, the most restrictive measures consistently had the largest negative economic impacts. Social distancing and mask mandates can be effective for containment while mitigating the economic impacts of strict SIPs and business closures.

Indexed as

CovidLockdownNon-pharmaceutical interventionPublic health policy

Identifiers

PMID37095763
PMCPMC10116346
OpenAlexW4366506515

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.