MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3106501418 · doi:10.1101/2020.11.13.20194761

Does the timing of government COVID-19 policy interventions matter? Policy analysis of an original database

2020· preprint· en· W3106501418 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Stephens, Jose Berengueres, Sridhar Venkatapuram, Immanuel Azaad Moonesar

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlliance for Health Policy and Systems ResearchWorld Health Organization
KeywordsPsychological interventionChinaPandemicGovernment (linguistics)Policy analysisDemographyPolitical scienceCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)GeographyDevelopment economicsEconomic growthMedicineEconomicsDiseaseSociologyPublic administrationNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Objective Though the speed of policy interventions is critical in responding to a fast spreading pandemic, there is little research on this topic. This study aims to (1) review the state of research on the topic (2) compile an original dataset of 87 COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical interventions across 17 countries and (3) analyses the timing of COVID-19 policy interventions on mortality rates of individual countries. Design Statistical analysis using Excel and R language version 3.4.2 (2017-09-28) of 1479 non-pharmaceutical policy interventions data points. Setting China, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Germany, Canada, India, United Arab Emirates, United States of America, South Africa, Egypt, Jordan, France, Iran, United Kingdom and Italy. Population 36 health policies, 19 fiscal policies; 8 innovation policies; 19 social distancing policies, and 5 travel policies – related to COVID-19. Interventions We calculate the time (time-lag) between the start date of a policy and three-time specific events: the first reported case in Wuhan, China; the first nationally reported disease case; the first nationally reported death. Main Outcome Measures National level mortality rates across 17 countries. Mortality rate is equivalent to (death attributed to COVID-19) / (death attributed to COVID-19 + COVID-19 recovered cases). Results The literature review found 22 studies that looked at policy and timing with respect to mortality rates. Only four were multicountry, multi-policy studies. Based on the analysis of the database, we find no significant direction of the association (positive or negative) between the time lag from the three specified points and mortality rates. The standard deviation (SD) of policy lags was of the same order of magnitude as the mean of lags (30.57 and 30.22 respectively), indicating that there is no consensus among countries on the optimal time lags to implement a given policy. At the country level, the average time lag to implement a policy decreased the longer the time duration between the country’s first case and the Wuhan first case, indicating countries got faster to implement policies as more time passed. Conclusions The timing of policy interventions across countries relative to the first Wuhan case, first national disease case, or first national death, is not found to be correlated with mortality. No correlation between country quickness of policy intervention and country mortality was found. Countries became quicker in implementing policies as time passed. However, no correlation between country quickness of policy intervention and country mortality was found. Policy interventions across countries relative to the first recorded case in each country, is not found to be correlated with mortality for 86 of the 87 policies. At the country level we find that no correlation was found between country-average delays in implementing policies and country mortality. Further there is no correlation with higher country rankings in The Global Health Security Index and policy timing and mortality rates. Funding Statement This work was supported by the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research at the World Health Organization as part of the Knowledge to Policy (K2P) Center Mentorship Program. A competing interests statement” All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coidisclosure.pdf and declare: IAM and MS would like to acknowledge the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research at the World Health Organization for financial support for publishing as part of the Knowledge to Policy (K2P) Center Mentorship Program [BIRD Project].

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.230
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.230
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0090.022
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.355
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.150 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies→French-language works237,207→