ArticlePloS one2024
Compliance with COVID-19 government guidance and rules by disabled people and people from minoritised ethnic groups: Qualitative findings from the CICADA study.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Within the 2020/21 CICADA (Coronavirus Intersectionalities: Chronic Conditions or Disabilities and Migrants and other Ethnic minorities) study, we explored full, partial or noncompliance with government COVID-19 infection-containment measures by people from minoritised ethnic groups with a disabling health condition or impairment. We used an assets-based intersectional approach and purposive sampling, included non-disabled and White British comparators, and trained community co-researchers to help us reach undocumented migrants and asylum seekers. We undertook 271 semi-structured qualitative interviews, followed by participatory workshops with interviewees to explore data and changes in experiences five and 10 months after the interviews. Perceiving their vulnerability to COVID-19, most participants quickly and often zealously adopted infection-containment behaviours, and continued this after restrictions were lifted. This could reduce mental wellbeing, especially in community-facing cultures, and could create family conflict. Various structural inequities impeded compliance. Many, especially undocumented migrants, felt imprisoned. The intersection of gender, citizenship, socioeconomic status and culture impacted disclosures of COVID-19 infection, support seeking and use. Many were unclear what was safe as well as unsafe. People complained that disability and cultural considerations were omitted from policymaking. Participants mostly had taken the COVID-19 vaccine by October 2022, but ethnic minority participants needed time to deliberate and trusted, community-embedded information whereas White British participants were mostly influenced by mass media. The intersection of health condition or impairment, poverty, and living alone led to more non-compliance with general rules, and more vaccine hesitancy than did misinformation spread through ethnic community channels. Many participants were reluctant to reintegrate in May 2022 because of continued perceived vulnerability to COVID-19 but by September 2022 = seemed more concerned about the economic crisis. We add two new 'types' to existing compliance typologies: deliberators (who eventually decide to follow the rules), and 'necessity-driven non-compliers' who are totally unable to comply because of their disabilities.
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.