A regression discontinuity analysis of the social distancing recommendations for older adults in Sweden during COVID-19.
Journal
European journal of public health
ISSN: 1464-360X
Titre abrégé: Eur J Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9204966
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 10 2022
03 10 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
14
8
2022
medline:
5
10
2022
entrez:
13
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This article investigates the impact of a non-mandatory and age-specific social distancing recommendation on isolation behaviours and disease outcomes in Sweden during the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic (March to July 2020). The policy stated that people aged 70 years or older should avoid crowded places and contact with people outside the household. We used a regression discontinuity design-in combination with self-reported isolation data from COVID Symptom Study Sweden (n = 96 053; age range: 39-79 years) and national register data (age range: 39-100+ years) on severe COVID-19 disease (hospitalization or death, n = 21 804) and confirmed cases (n = 48 984)-to estimate the effects of the policy. Our primary analyses showed a sharp drop in the weekly number of visits to crowded places (-13%) and severe COVID-19 cases (-16%) at the 70-year threshold. These results imply that the age-specific recommendations prevented approximately 1800-2700 severe COVID-19 cases, depending on model specification. It seems that the non-mandatory, age-specific recommendations helped control COVID-19 disease during the first wave of the pandemic in Sweden, as opposed to not implementing a social distancing policy aimed at older adults. Our study provides empirical data on how populations may react to non-mandatory, age-specific social distancing policies in the face of a novel virus.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
This article investigates the impact of a non-mandatory and age-specific social distancing recommendation on isolation behaviours and disease outcomes in Sweden during the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic (March to July 2020). The policy stated that people aged 70 years or older should avoid crowded places and contact with people outside the household.
METHODS
We used a regression discontinuity design-in combination with self-reported isolation data from COVID Symptom Study Sweden (n = 96 053; age range: 39-79 years) and national register data (age range: 39-100+ years) on severe COVID-19 disease (hospitalization or death, n = 21 804) and confirmed cases (n = 48 984)-to estimate the effects of the policy.
RESULTS
Our primary analyses showed a sharp drop in the weekly number of visits to crowded places (-13%) and severe COVID-19 cases (-16%) at the 70-year threshold. These results imply that the age-specific recommendations prevented approximately 1800-2700 severe COVID-19 cases, depending on model specification.
CONCLUSIONS
It seems that the non-mandatory, age-specific recommendations helped control COVID-19 disease during the first wave of the pandemic in Sweden, as opposed to not implementing a social distancing policy aimed at older adults. Our study provides empirical data on how populations may react to non-mandatory, age-specific social distancing policies in the face of a novel virus.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35962987
pii: 6665904
doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckac101
pmc: PMC9384721
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
799-806Investigateurs
Andrew T Chan
(AT)
Sébastien Ourselin
(S)
Tim D Spector
(TD)
Jonathan Wolf
(J)
Beatrice Kennedy
(B)
Hugo Fitipaldi
(H)
Ulf Hammar
(U)
Marlena Maziarz
(M)
Neli Tsereteli
(N)
Nikolay Oskolkov
(N)
Georgios Varotsis
(G)
Lampros Spiliopoulos
(L)
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association.
Références
Soc Sci Med. 2021 Oct;286:114335
pubmed: 34450390
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Nov 3;117(44):27285-27291
pubmed: 33060298
JMIR Aging. 2021 Apr 12;4(2):e26474
pubmed: 33720839
World Dev. 2021 Feb;138:105236
pubmed: 33100480
Epidemiology. 2014 Sep;25(5):729-37
pubmed: 25061922
Am Econ J Appl Econ. 2009 Jan 1;1(1):164-182
pubmed: 20351794
Science. 2020 Jun 19;368(6497):1362-1367
pubmed: 32371477
Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Apr;5(4):529-538
pubmed: 33686204
BMC Med. 2021 Feb 5;19(1):40
pubmed: 33541353
Sci Adv. 2021 Mar 19;7(12):
pubmed: 33741586
Eur J Epidemiol. 2017 Sep;32(9):765-773
pubmed: 28983736
Gerontologist. 2021 Feb 23;61(2):176-186
pubmed: 32977334
BMC Public Health. 2011 Jun 09;11:450
pubmed: 21658213
Age Ageing. 2021 Feb 26;50(2):341-346
pubmed: 33173949
BMJ. 2021 Nov 17;375:e068302
pubmed: 34789505
Glob Transit. 2020;2:76-82
pubmed: 32835202
Scand J Occup Ther. 2022 Aug;29(6):511-521
pubmed: 34088255
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jul 26;17(15):
pubmed: 32722624
Epidemiology. 2021 Jan;32(1):87-93
pubmed: 33196561
Nat Commun. 2022 Apr 21;13(1):2110
pubmed: 35449172
PLoS One. 2020 Jul 2;15(7):e0235590
pubmed: 32614889
Lancet Public Health. 2020 May;5(5):e256
pubmed: 32199471
J Infect. 2021 Sep;83(3):281-293
pubmed: 34161818
Nat Med. 2020 Jul;26(7):1037-1040
pubmed: 32393804
J Health Econ. 2018 May;59:109-124
pubmed: 29723695