Evidence mapPaperPMID 34879083Full record

SynthesisPloS one2021

The effect of different COVID-19 public health restrictions on mobility: A systematic review.

Mark A Tully, Laura McMaw, Deepti Adlakha, Neale Blair, Jonny McAneney, Helen McAneney, Christina Carmichael, Conor Cunningham, Nicola C Armstrong, Lee Smith

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Effects of non-compulsory and mandatory COVID-19 interventions on travel distance and time away from home, Norway, 2021.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
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

10 authors.

Mark A TullyInstitute of Mental Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, Ulster University, Newtownabbey, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9710-4014
Laura McMawSchool of Health Sciences, Ulster University, Newtownabbey, United Kingdom.
Deepti AdlakhaDepartment of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning, Natural Learning Initiative, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, United States of America.
Neale BlairBuilt Environment Research Institute, Ulster University, Newtownabbey, United Kingdom.
Jonny McAneneyInstitute of Mental Health Sciences, Ulster University, Newtownabbey, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0534-7965
Helen McAneneyUCD Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, Education, and Innovation in Health Systems, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-5248-7872
Christina CarmichaelCentre for Health, Performance and Wellbeing, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Conor CunninghamInstitute of Public Health, City Exchange, Belfast, United Kingdom.
Nicola C ArmstrongHealth and Social Care Research & Development Division, Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland), Belfast, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7036-3649
Lee SmithCentre for Health, Performance and Wellbeing, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn response to the COVID-19 pandemic, most countries have introduced non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as stay-at-home orders, to reduce person-to-person contact and break trains of transmission. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effect of different public health restrictions on mobility across different countries and cultures. The University of Bern COVID-19 Living Evidence database of COVID-19 and SARS-COV-2 publications was searched for retrospective or prospective studies evaluating the impact of COVID-19 public health restrictions on Google Mobility. Titles and abstracts were independently screened by two authors. Information from included studies was extracted by one researcher and double checked by another. Risk of bias of included articles was assessed using the Newcastle Ottowa Scale. Given the heterogeneous nature of the designs used, a narrative synthesis was undertaken. From the search, 1672 references were identified, of which 14 were included in the narrative synthesis. All studies reported data from the first wave of the pandemic, with Google Mobility Scores included from January to August 2020, with most studies analysing data during the first two months of the pandemic. Seven studies were assessed as having a moderate risk of bias and seven as a low risk of bias. Countries that introduced more stringent public health restrictions experienced greater reductions in mobility, through increased time at home and reductions in visits to shops, workplaces and use of public transport. Stay-at-home orders were the most effective of the individual strategies, whereas mask mandates had little effect of mobility.

conclusionsPublic health restrictions, particularly stay-at-home orders have significantly impacted on transmission prevention behaviours. Further research is required to understand how to effectively address pandemic fatigue and to support the safe return back to normal day-to-day behaviours.

Indexed as

MovementPublic HealthCOVID-19Databases, FactualHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID34879083
PMCPMC8654173

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.