ArticlePLOS global public health2024
Mobility changes following COVID-19 stay-at-home policies varied by socioeconomic measures: An observational study in Ontario, Canada.
Article in PLOS global public health, 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.
- Connectivity between long-term care homes and subsequent SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks.BMC public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In Canada, lower income households and essential workers were disproportionately at risk of SARS-CoV-2. Early in the pandemic, stay-at-home restriction policies were used to limit virus transmission. There remains an evidence gap in how changes in mobility, in response to the policies, varied across socioeconomic measures in Canada. The study objective was to describe the variability in mobility change to two restrictions, by neighborhood-level income and by proportion essential workers across five regions in Ontario, Canada. The first restriction was implemented on March 17, 2020 in all five regions; and the second restriction was implemented in November 23, 2020 in two of the regions. Using cell-phone mobility data aggregated to the census tract, we compared the average mobility (% of devices that travelled outside their "primary location") three weeks before and after each restriction. We defined the adjusted mobility change via pre-restriction mobility subtracted from post-restriction, adjusted for 2019 levels. We used difference-in-differences analysis to quantify effect modification of the second restriction's effect by socioeconomic measures. With the first restriction, crude mobility fell from 77.7% to 41.6% across the five regions. The adjusted mobility change to the first restriction was largest in the highest-income neighborhoods (-43.3% versus -38.4%) and in neighborhoods with the fewest essential workers (-44.5% versus -37.6%). The overall adjusted mobility change to the second restriction was small: -0.96% (95% confidence intervals, -1.53 to -0.38%). However, there was evidence of effect modification by socioeconomic measures (less pronounced decrease in lower-income neighborhoods and more essential workers). The findings suggest a temporal saturation effect of restrictions over subsequent waves, and a saturation effect by income and occupation, leading to prevention gaps across populations by socioeconomic measures. Findings highlight the need for tailored approaches at the intersections of income and occupation when addressing epidemics of novel and resurging respiratory pathogens.
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.