ArticleBMJ global health2025
A global analysis of quarantine and isolation policies governing outbreak responses.
Article in BMJ global 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCountries across the world implemented diverse quarantine and isolation policies throughout the COVID-19 pandemic with varying levels of efficacy. Their widespread use invites new considerations regarding the effectiveness of domestic quarantine and isolation policies, the ways they are enforced, and the jurisdictions responsible for ordering these measures.
methodsWe systematically analysed legally enforceable policies in current standing in each United Nations (UN) Member State, assessing the authorities to quarantine and isolate individuals within national borders. We captured the text of each policy and categorised the responsible jurisdictional authority and enforcement mechanisms.
resultsOf UN Member States, 91.67% (176/192) had legally enforceable policies that addressed both quarantine and isolation. Two countries only had quarantine policies, seven only had isolation policies and seven countries had neither. Jurisdictional quarantine authority was primarily vested in the national level (74.16%; 132/178), with the remainder mixed (22.47%; 40/178) and subnational only (3.37%; 6/178). Isolation authority was also primarily at the national level (69.40%; 127/183) but with a greater proportion mixed (27.87%; 51/183) and subnational only (2.73%; 5/183).Quarantine enforcement mechanisms were codified in a majority of countries (80.91%; 144/178) with nearly all (94.44%; 136/144) enforcing quarantine through penalties for non-compliant individuals. Isolation enforcement mechanisms were codified in an even greater number of countries (86.89%; 159/183), with 95.51% (149/156) having penalties for non-compliant individuals.
conclusionsWe created a novel repository for quarantine and isolation policies to assist in future outbreak responses. We identify specific country-level policy gaps, which can be addressed through epidemic and pandemic preparedness efforts. Finally, the repository provides the necessary evidence base for future research analysing the impact of quarantine and isolation policies on disease outbreak response outcomes.
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.