Research on the impact of policy tools on health protection behavior of the middle-aged and older adults in the city.

Ruxin Wu, Keqi Yi, Yanyi Yang, Shuang Wang

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ruxin WuSchool of Public Administration, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, 410075, China. ruxinwu@csu.edu.cn.

Keqi YiSchool of Public Administration, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, 410075, China.

Yanyi YangThe Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, 410011, China. yangyanyi162@csu.edu.cn.

Shuang WangSchool of Public Administration, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, 410075, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo understand the role mechanism of policy tools on the influence of protection behavior of middle-aged and older adults, and to provide a reference basis for the government to improve the protection policy of infectious diseases.

methodsA questionnaire on protective behaviors was conducted in June to August 2023 using a random sampling method among 463 urban middle-aged and older adults (aged 45 and above) in 19 provinces. And the mechanism of the influence of policy tools on protective behaviors of middle-aged and older adults was analyzed through using multivariate ordered logistic regression model.

resultsThe mean value of protective behavior was 3.025 among 463 middle-aged and older adults; the results of multivariate ordered logistic regression analysis showed that punitive tools, incentive tools, nudging tools, and boosting tools could directly and positively influence the protective behavior of middle-aged and older adults; self-efficacy partially mediated the influence of the four types of policy tools on protective behavior.

conclusionThe protective behavior of middle-aged and older adults still needs to be improved, and policy tools can be utilized to intervene in their protective behaviors.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorHealth PolicyUrban PopulationAgedChinaCitiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesMiddle-aged and older adultsPolicy toolsProtective behaviorSelf-efficacy

Identifiers

PMID40611070

DOI10.1186/s12889-025-23501-w

PMCPMC12224682

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY-NC-ND

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.