Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37653145›Full record

ArticleNature human behaviour2023

Quantifying the human impact of Melbourne's 111-day hard lockdown experiment on the adult population.

Stefanie Schurer, Kadir Atalay, Nick Glozier, Esperanza Vera-Toscano, Mark Wooden

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature human behaviour, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Changes in Atopic Sensitisation From 1 to 5 Years of Age: Longitudinal Data From the MIS BAIR Trial.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. What happened to the predicted COVID-19-induced suicide epidemic, and why?The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry · 2023
    Article
  7. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Stefanie SchurerSchool of Economics, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. stefanie.schurer@sydney.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-1103-5239
Kadir AtalaySchool of Economics, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7769-1450
Nick GlozierAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence, Families and Children over the Lifecourse, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0476-9146
Esperanza Vera-ToscanoMelbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0736-1381
Mark WoodenIZA Institute of Labor Economics, Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2236-4166
The University of Sydney · AUThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

The economic and social impact of pandemic mitigation policies: A cross-country analysis of macro eventsR01AG071649 · NIA · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI LILLARD, DEAN R · 2021 to 2025
$4.8M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG071649
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lockdown was used worldwide to mitigate the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and was the cornerstone non-pharmaceutical intervention of zero-COVID strategies. Many previous impact evaluations of lockdowns are unreliable because lockdowns co-occurred with severe coronavirus disease related health and financial insecurities. This was not the case in Melbourne's 111-day lockdown, which left other Australian jurisdictions unaffected. Interrogating nationally representative longitudinal survey data and quasi-experimental variation, and controlling for multiple hypothesis testing, we found that lockdown had some statistically significant, albeit small, impacts on several domains of human life. Women had lower mental health (-0.10 s.d., P = 0.043, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.21 to -0) and working hours (-0.13 s.d., P = 0.006, 95% CI = -0.22 to -0.04) but exercised more often (0.28 s.d., P < 0.001, 95% CI = 0.18 to 0.39) and received more government transfers (0.12 s.d., P = 0.048, 95% CI = 0.001 to 0.24). Men felt less part of their community (-0.20 s.d., P < 0.001, 95% CI = -0.30 to -0.10) and reduced working hours (-0.12 s.d., P = 0.004, 95% CI = -0.20 to -0.04). Heterogeneity analyses demonstrated that families with children were driving the negative results. Mothers had lower mental health (-0.27 s.d., P = 0.014, 95% CI = -0.48 to -0.06), despite feeling safer (0.26 s.d., P = 0.008, 95% CI = 0.07 to 0.46). Fathers increased their alcohol consumption (0.35 s.d., P = 0.002, 95% CI = 0.13 to 0.57). Some outcomes worsened with lockdown length for mothers. We discuss potential explanations for why parents were adversely affected by lockdown.

Indexed as

COVID-19AdultAnthropogenic EffectsAustraliaChildFemaleHumansMaleMental HealthSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID37653145
PMCPMC10846680
OpenAlexW4386324926

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.