Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38092847›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Longing for touch post-COVID-19: current observations and future directions.

Birgit Hasenack, Larissa L Meijer, Anna van Harmelen, Krista E Overvliet, Anouk Keizer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 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
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Birgit Hasenack *Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Experimental Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. b.hasenack@uu.nl.
Larissa L Meijer *Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Experimental Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Anna van HarmelenFaculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Experimental Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Krista E OvervlietFaculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Experimental Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Anouk KeizerFaculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Experimental Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous studies have reported an association between the COVID-19 pandemic, social distancing regulations and longing for touch (LFT; i.e., a discrepancy between actual touch frequency and one's desire to be touched). However, less is known about the prevalence and severity of LFT in the general population in the absence of social distancing regulations. The aim of this study was therefore to exploratively compare data collected during and after the pandemic. Pandemic data was collected online in an international sample (n = 1982), of which a matched subsample (n = 115) was used in the reported analyses. Post-pandemic data was collected one week after social distancing regulations restrictions were lifted in the Netherlands (n = 60) and when virtually no restrictions were in place (n = 55). The severity of LFT was significantly higher during the pandemic than afterwards. Although there were no significant differences in the general prevalence of LFT, significantly more participants reported high levels of LFT (score of 75-100) during the pandemic. We cautiously conclude that, although LFT may have peaked during the pandemic, a large portion of the general population desires to experience more interpersonal touch, even in the absence of social distancing regulations.

Indexed as

COVID-19Physical DistancingTouch PerceptionHumansPandemicsTouch

Identifiers

PMID38092847
PMCPMC10719239

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.