ArticleSSM - population health2025
Understanding the dynamics and interplay of public support and adherence to five key mitigation behaviors over the course of the evolving COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in SSM - population 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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Behavioral measures played a critical role in mitigating the COVID-19 pandemic, and their success hinged on continued public support and adherence. This study provides novel evidence on changes in support and adherence to behavioral mitigation measures and appraises the role of pandemic fatigue to provide robust guidance for effective governance of future public health and safety crises. Data were collected from a population cohort study in the Netherlands. This study used data from six assessments (December 2020-March 2022) at 12-week intervals, aligned with differences in pandemic severity and policy stringency. The analytic sample consisted of participants (N = 20,475) randomly allocated to answer questions on support and adherence to measures, focusing on physical distancing, avoiding crowds, mask-wearing on public transport, COVID-19 testing when symptomatic, and staying home when symptomatic. Changes in adherence and support and their interplay across time were assessed using random intercept cross-lagged panel models, controlling for age, gender and education. At the end of 2020, support for mitigation measures was found to be high, with little difference between measures. Subsequent changes in support for most measures broadly paralleled changes in pandemic severity and policy stringency. Adherence was less responsive to pandemic severity and policy stringency, and was mostly stable, albeit with differences between behavioral measures. Support and adherence to COVID-19 testing steadily increased after this was recommended as of early 2021. Changes in support and adherence did not reflect the notion of pandemic fatigue as a monotonic decline in support and adherence across behaviors. Findings highlight the need to better understand and address the factors influencing differing dynamics in support and adherence to specific protective behaviors.
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.