ArticleSSM - population health2026
Polarization and health-related behaviors and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.
Article in SSM - population health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cardiovascular Benefit and Gastrointestinal Risk of Colchicine in Secondary Prevention: Risk Associated with Dose and Treatment Duration.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2026Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Political and affective polarization are different, but related concepts, which can shape trust in authorities, interpretation of health messages, and health behaviors and outcomes. The aim of this study was to systematically review the research literature, exploring how affective and political polarization are associated with COVID-19-related health behaviors and outcomes. Methods: From January 1, 2019 to November 27, 2024, we searched 12 electronic databases for studies about affective or political polarization and COVID-19-related outcomes, including preventive behaviors such as vaccination, compliance with policies, perceived risk and health outcomes. We included studies reporting primary data from participants of any age and gender, published in any language. Two independent reviewers, from a total of seven, conducted study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We synthesized findings narratively and reported them according to the PRISMA 2020 statement. Results: Of 2021 unique articles, we included nine cross-sectional studies, all conducted in the United States of America or Europe from 2020 to 2022. Four studies found associations between higher political polarization and lower COVID-19 vaccine uptake or intent. Reported associations between vaccination and affective polarization were mixed. Four studies of other COVID-19 attitudes or prevention measures found mixed results for both types of polarization. In one study, no association was found between polarization and changes in death in 2020 compared with 2015 to 2019. The risk of selection bias in included studies was high. Discussion: This systematic review found some evidence of associations between polarization and COVID-19 health-related behaviors and outcomes. Cohort studies are needed to understand the direction of association. More international and interdisciplinary approaches to the study of polarization are needed to generate evidence to inform health and public policy effectively and improve preparedness for future pandemics.
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.