Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37601192›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2023

Acceptability of restrictions in the COVID-19 pandemic: a population-based survey in Denmark and Sweden.

Per Nilsen, Ida Seing, Mandeep Sekhon, Thomas Kallemose, Tine Tjørnhøj-Thomsen, Nina Thórný Stefánsdóttir, Karsten Vrangbæk, Ove Andersen, Jeanette Wassar Kirk

Abstract 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
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  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

9 authors.

Per NilsenDepartment of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Ida SeingDepartment of Behavioral Sciences and Learning, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Mandeep SekhonPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Thomas KallemoseDepartment of Clinical Research, Copenhagen University Hospital, Amager and Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark.
Tine Tjørnhøj-ThomsenNational Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Nina Thórný StefánsdóttirDepartment of Clinical Research, Copenhagen University Hospital, Amager and Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark.
Karsten VrangbækDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ove AndersenDepartment of Clinical Research, Copenhagen University Hospital, Amager and Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark.
Jeanette Wassar KirkDepartment of Clinical Research, Copenhagen University Hospital, Amager and Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Denmark and Sweden initially adopted different responses to the COVID-19 pandemic although the two countries share many characteristics. Denmark responded swiftly with many mandatory restrictions. In contrast, Sweden relied on voluntary restrictions and a more "relaxed" response during the first wave of the pandemic. However, increased rates of COVID-19 cases led to a new approach that involved many more mandatory restrictions, thus making Sweden's response similar to Denmark's in the second wave of the pandemic. Aim: The aim was to investigate and compare the extent to which the populations in Denmark and Sweden considered the COVID-19 restrictions to be acceptable during the first two waves of the pandemic. The study also aimed to identify the characteristics of those who were least accepting of the restrictions in the two countries. Materials and methods: Cross-sectional surveys were conducted in Denmark and Sweden in 2021. The study population was sampled from nationally representative web panels in the two countries, consisting of 2,619 individuals from Denmark and 2,633 from Sweden. The questionnaire captured key socio-demographic characteristics. Acceptability was operationalized based on a theoretical framework consisting of seven constructs and one overarching construct. Results: The respondents' age and gender patterns were similar in the two countries. The proportion of respondents in Denmark who agreed with the statements ("agree" alternative) that captured various acceptability constructs was generally higher for the first wave than the second wave of the pandemic. The opposite pattern was seen for Sweden. In Denmark, 66% in the first wave and 50% in the second wave were accepting of the restrictions. The corresponding figures for Sweden was 42% (first wave) and 47% (second wave). Low acceptance of the restrictions, defined as the 25% with the lowest total score on the seven acceptability statements, was associated with younger age, male gender and lower education levels. Conclusion: Respondents in Sweden were more accepting of the restrictions in the second wave, when the country used many mandatory restrictions. In contrast, respondents in Denmark were more accepting of the restrictions in the first wave than in the second wave, implying an increased weariness to comply with the restrictions over time. There were considerable socio-demographic differences between those who expressed low acceptance of the restrictions and the others in both countries, suggesting the importance of tailoring communication about the pandemic to different segments of the population.

Indexed as

COVID-19Cross-Sectional StudiesDenmarkHumansMalePandemicsSwedenacceptabilitycomplianceCOVID-19restrictionssurvey

Identifiers

PMID37601192
PMCPMC10434523

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.