ArticleBMC public health2024
Crossroads of well-being and compliance: a qualitative cohort study of visitor restriction policy during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Netherlands, May 2020-December 2021.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn this qualitative study we observed in-depth the impact of the visiting restriction policy (VRP, i.e. number of visitors allowed at home) on well-being and compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic to regulate infection rates.
methodsA cohort of 15 interviewees was followed throughout the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands in 12 interview rounds (May 2020-December 2021). Every round semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted by a team of 8 researchers. In total 176 interviews were conducted.
resultsThis study showed that four categories can be identified when observing the impact of the VRP on well-being and compliance. For Resilient-Followers reasons for compliance were risk perception, following government rules, and for some having a small social circle. Because they accepted the situation, well-being was hardly affected. Resilient-Rulebreakers made their own risk assessment of people they met. Their well-being was hardly affected, because they experienced social rest and interpreted the measure in their own way. Suffering-Followers complied, because of risk perception, following government rules, and working in healthcare. However, the VRP had substantial impact on well-being, because social structures were disrupted. Suffering-Rulebreakers gave their own interpretation to the VRP, trying to find a balance between compliance and well-being. We observed that the categories were quite stable over time.
conclusionsThe VRP appeared to be a measure with substantial impact on well-being for some, mostly because social structures were disrupted. The measure showed fluctuating compliance, in which feasibility and frequent changes in the VRP played a role. Well-being seemed related to the number of visitors that was allowed; a restriction of four visitors was feasible, while one visitor resulted in a negative breaking-point in resilience, which had an impact on compliance, even among the most compliant. Taken together, this study provides valuable insights into the implications of and compliance to a VRP during different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, which may contribute to policymaking during future pandemics.
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.