ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2026
Development of the Physical Distancing Scale for COVID-19 Avoidance (PDS-C19©) in immunocompromised and non-immunocompromised individuals and its validation in the EAGLE Study.
Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMany immunocompromised individuals continue to practice physical distancing behaviors to avoid severe COVID-19 outcomes. To measure the intensity of these physical distancing behaviors, we aimed to develop and validate a standardized metric across age groups: the Physical Distancing Scale for COVID-19 Avoidance (PDS-C19©). METHODOLOGY: PDS-C19 development involved content scoping, initial draft PDS-C19 design phase, and exploratory testing (via asynchronous online forums). Psychometric properties (structural validity, reliability, and construct validity) of the PDS-C19 were evaluated using a random sample of immunocompromised and non-immunocompromised participants (n = 1059) of the EAGLE Study, including adults and children aged 0.5-17 years from the US and UK. Adult caregivers of children aged ≤ 12 years completed a proxy version of the PDS-C19 on their behalf, in addition to providing self-reported responses.
resultsFindings from the two asynchronous forums (n = 23 and n = 22) indicated that the items identified in the scoping phase were relevant and well-understood. As part of the structural validity analysis, item-response distributions, inter-item correlations, and exploratory factor analyses supported a nine-item unidimensional intensity scale. Confirmatory factor analyses reduced the PDS-C19 to seven items (two items were dropped due to high residual correlations or differential item functioning by age). Internal consistency was high (ω = 0.97); convergent validity was good, with high correlations (r
conclusionThe PDS-C19 had acceptable structural and construct validity and high internal consistency, demonstrating its value as a measure of physical distancing to avoid COVID-19 in immunocompromised and non-immunocompromised individuals.
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.