ArticleScientific reports2024
The mental burden of stay-at-home order extensions during COVID-19.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluates the psychological impact of stay-at-home extension orders during COVID-19 and its relationship with individuals' expectations on the duration of the extensions. An online survey was administered to 1259 US adult residents to measure symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety and stress induced by different stay-at-home order extensions using hypothetical length scenarios. We find that individuals exposed to two 2-week order extensions exhibit higher levels of stress and anxiety compared to those exposed to a single 4-week extension. We also find that subjects with longer expected extensions exhibit more signs of psychological damage than those with shorter expected extensions. Furthermore, we find that the negative psychological consequences of providing two shorter extensions is observed only among subjects with extension expectations of four weeks or less. Our results demonstrate that people's expectations affect the level of psychological damage caused by lockdown mandates. Our findings suggest that whenever lockdown extensions are necessary, reduced psychological distress may be possible by implementing a one-time restriction, rather than extending multiple smaller extensions perhaps due to manipulation of personal expectations.
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.