ArticlePloS one2025
The global response to the pandemic: An empirical cluster analysis of policies targeting COVID-19.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- The COVID-19 pandemic's impact on psychotropic medication prescriptions for children and adolescents: a scoping review of quantitative longitudinal studies.Annals of general psychiatry · 2026Review
- The equity catastrophe: how securitized financing collapses essential care during health crises.Health affairs scholar · 2026Article
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
It is well known that countries differed in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of the timing and intensity of specific measures such as lockdowns, face masks and vaccine rollout. However, previous studies have not investigated systematic differences in the overall pandemic strategies. We use daily data from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker (OxCGRT), between January 2020 and December 2022 focusing on 16 key pandemic policies, including containment, economic, and health system measures, and apply a three-dimensional k-means clustering algorithm to identify distinct overarching strategies based on the type, intensity, and timing of the response adopted by different countries. We identify four distinct strategies; 1) the traditional infectious disease control approach, adopted by a wide range of high- and middle-income countries, which emphasises strict containment policies and movement restrictions, 2) the public health-oriented approach, adopted by developed welfare states with ageing populations and high health care expenditures, which is more flexible over time and focuses more on economic and health policies, such as income support and testing strategies, with less emphasis on stringent containment, 3) high stringency with gradual relaxation, and 4) reactive policies at a minimal level, both adopted by less democratic low- and middle income countries with substantial inequalities and with younger and less vulnerable populations. The findings contribute to understanding how different countries adapted to the pandemic and how these responses may relate to broader socio-political contexts, including welfare state arrangements and economic resilience.
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.