ArticleF1000Research2024
Polarization and health-related behaviours and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review protocol.
Article in F1000Research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Polarization and health-related behaviors and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.SSM - population health · 2026Article
- Polarization and health-related behaviours and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review protocol.F1000Research · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic affected people's health behaviours and health outcomes. Political or affective polarization could be associated with health behaviours such as mask-wearing or vaccine uptake and with health outcomes, e.g., infection or mortality rate. Political polarization relates to divergence or spread of ideological beliefs and affective polarization is about dislike between people of different political groups, such as ideologies or parties. The objectives of this study are to investigate and synthesize evidence about associations between both forms of polarization and COVID-19 health behaviours and outcomes. Methods: In this systematic review, we will include quantitative studies that assess the relationship between political or affective polarization and COVID-19-related behaviours and outcomes, including adherence to mask mandates, vaccine uptake, infection and mortality rate. We will use a predetermined strategy to search EMBASE, Medline (Ovid), Cochrane Library, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Global Health (Ovid), PsycInfo (Ovid), Web of Science, CINAHL, EconLit (EBSCOhost), WHO COVID-19 Database, iSearch COVID-19 Portfolio (NIH) and Google Scholar from 2019 to September 8 2023. One reviewer will screen unique records according to eligibility criteria. A second reviewer will verify the selection. Data extraction, using pre-piloted electronic forms, will follow a similar process. The risk of bias of the included studies will be assessed using the JBI checklist for analytical cross sectional studies. We will summarise the included studies descriptively and examine the heterogeneity between studies. Quantitative data pooling might not be feasible due to variations in measurement methods used to evaluate exposure, affective and political polarization. If there are enough relevant studies for statistical data synthesis, we will conduct a meta-analysis. Discussion: This review will help to better understand the concept of polarization in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and might inform decision making for future pandemics. Protocol registration: PROSPERO ID: CRD42023475828.
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.