ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023
Autobiographical memory in contact tracing: evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The recent COVID-19 pandemic has compelled various governments to trace all contacts of a confirmed case, as well as to identify the locations visited by infected individuals. This task, that requires the activation of our autobiographical memories, can make a difference in the spread of the contagion and was based primarily on telephone interviews with infected people. In this study, we examined whether participants were able to provide contact tracing information and whether their memories were influenced by salient events occurring during the initial phases of the pandemic. Methods: Participants were asked to fill in an online standardized form in which they recounted every day of the 2 weeks before, reporting as much information as possible. The time period selected included, among other things, the day on which the Italian government issued the decree initiating the COVID-19 lockdown. The task was completed twice, the first time relying solely on their memory, and the second time using external aids (diaries, mobile phones etc.). Reports were then coded using a scheme that segmented accounts into informational details, divided into two broad categories, internal and external. Results: Our findings showed that (i) the use of external aids was effective only when participants had to recall the day furthest away or if to-be-recalled events have low distinctiveness, and (ii) memories of internal details were recalled better than memories of external details. Participants were overall accurate and reported a large amount of information about people and places. However, because of the connection with key pandemic-related events, the effect was somewhat stronger on specific days (e.g., the day in which the lockdown was announced). Discussion: The results of this work could provide a useful tool for improving the design of contact tracing procedures in the event of an unwanted future public health crisis caused by a highly infectious agent.
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.