• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

基于多模糊回归断点法的新冠疫情死亡人数相关政策分析

Analysis of Policies Based on the Multi-Fuzzy Regression Discontinuity, in Terms of the Number of Deaths in the Coronavirus Epidemic.

作者信息

Wang Xianghui, Chen Chang, Du Yan, Zhang Yang, Wu Chengliang

机构信息

School of Economics and Management, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China.

出版信息

Healthcare (Basel). 2021 Jan 22;9(2):116. doi: 10.3390/healthcare9020116.

DOI:10.3390/healthcare9020116
PMID:33499030
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7912350/
Abstract

It has been a year since the outbreak of the coronavirus epidemic 2019 (COVID-19). In the face of the global epidemic, governments in all countries have taken different prevention measures, such as social isolation, mandatory health protection, and the closure of schools and workplaces. The situation of the epidemic has clearly varied from country to country. In this context, research on the impact of policies for the control of the spread of the global epidemic is of great significance. In this paper, we examined data from a sample of 212 countries between 31 December 2019, and 21 May 2020, using multi-fuzzy regression discontinuity. We found that developed countries had relatively low sensitivity to the policy stringency index; however, policy control measures had a significant effect on epidemic control. In addition, the trend analysis showed that the corresponding management and control came into play only after the policy stringency index reached 50 or the policy management reached level II, and the robustness was optimal at this time. Therefore, the governments in all countries should realize that epidemic prevention and control are of great importance. They can strengthen policy stringency to control the spread of the epidemic, considering their national conditions in terms of the economy and health system.

摘要

自2019年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)疫情爆发以来已过去一年。面对全球疫情,各国政府采取了不同的预防措施,如社会隔离、强制健康保护以及关闭学校和工作场所。疫情形势在各国明显不同。在此背景下,研究控制全球疫情传播政策的影响具有重要意义。在本文中,我们使用多模糊回归断点法,研究了2019年12月31日至2020年5月21日期间212个国家的样本数据。我们发现,发达国家对政策严格指数的敏感度相对较低;然而,政策控制措施对疫情防控有显著效果。此外,趋势分析表明,相应的管控措施只有在政策严格指数达到50或政策管控达到二级时才会发挥作用,此时稳健性最佳。因此,各国政府应认识到疫情防控至关重要。它们可以根据本国的经济和卫生系统国情,加强政策严格程度以控制疫情传播。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/85ff/7912350/cd0512431196/healthcare-09-00116-g007.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/85ff/7912350/657c63a469e5/healthcare-09-00116-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/85ff/7912350/479984341f5f/healthcare-09-00116-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/85ff/7912350/b650c790f17f/healthcare-09-00116-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/85ff/7912350/9e9ac2e4dcdb/healthcare-09-00116-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/85ff/7912350/d2ffa156d2f8/healthcare-09-00116-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/85ff/7912350/ff5642b97cc4/healthcare-09-00116-g006.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/85ff/7912350/cd0512431196/healthcare-09-00116-g007.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/85ff/7912350/657c63a469e5/healthcare-09-00116-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/85ff/7912350/479984341f5f/healthcare-09-00116-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/85ff/7912350/b650c790f17f/healthcare-09-00116-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/85ff/7912350/9e9ac2e4dcdb/healthcare-09-00116-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/85ff/7912350/d2ffa156d2f8/healthcare-09-00116-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/85ff/7912350/ff5642b97cc4/healthcare-09-00116-g006.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/85ff/7912350/cd0512431196/healthcare-09-00116-g007.jpg

相似文献

1
Analysis of Policies Based on the Multi-Fuzzy Regression Discontinuity, in Terms of the Number of Deaths in the Coronavirus Epidemic.基于多模糊回归断点法的新冠疫情死亡人数相关政策分析
Healthcare (Basel). 2021 Jan 22;9(2):116. doi: 10.3390/healthcare9020116.
2
The Age Structure, Stringency Policy, Income, and Spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019: Evidence From 209 Countries.2019年冠状病毒病的年龄结构、严格政策、收入与传播:来自209个国家的证据
Front Psychol. 2021 Feb 12;11:632192. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.632192. eCollection 2020.
3
Assessing the impact of local context and priorities regarding domestic disease outbreaks and imported risk on early pandemic response: Cross-continental comparisons.评估国内疾病爆发和输入性风险相关的地方背景和优先事项对大流行早期应对的影响:跨大陆比较。
Front Public Health. 2023 Mar 23;11:1147768. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1147768. eCollection 2023.
4
The relationship between time to a high COVID-19 response level and timing of peak daily incidence: an analysis of governments' Stringency Index from 148 countries.高新冠反应水平时间与每日发病高峰时间之间的关系:对 148 个国家政府的严格指数分析。
Infect Dis Poverty. 2021 Jul 5;10(1):96. doi: 10.1186/s40249-021-00880-x.
5
Impact of self-imposed prevention measures and short-term government-imposed social distancing on mitigating and delaying a COVID-19 epidemic: A modelling study.自行采取预防措施和短期政府实施社会隔离对减轻和延缓 COVID-19 疫情的影响:建模研究。
PLoS Med. 2020 Jul 21;17(7):e1003166. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003166. eCollection 2020 Jul.
6
Face mask use during the COVID-19 pandemic: how risk perception, experience with COVID-19, and attitude towards government interact with country-wide policy stringency.在 COVID-19 大流行期间使用口罩:风险认知、COVID-19 体验和对政府态度如何与全国性政策严格程度相互作用。
BMC Public Health. 2022 Aug 26;22(1):1622. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-13632-9.
7
Policy stringency and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal analysis of data from 15 countries.政策严格程度与新冠大流行期间的心理健康:来自 15 个国家的纵向数据分析。
Lancet Public Health. 2022 May;7(5):e417-e426. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(22)00060-3. Epub 2022 Apr 21.
8
Mitigation Policies and COVID-19-Associated Mortality - 37 European Countries, January 23-June 30, 2020.缓解政策与 COVID-19 相关死亡率 - 2020 年 1 月 23 日至 6 月 30 日期间的 37 个欧洲国家。
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021 Jan 15;70(2):58-62. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7002e4.
9
Trade-Off between COVID-19 Pandemic Prevention and Control and Economic Stimulus.新冠大流行防控与经济刺激之间的权衡。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Oct 27;19(21):13956. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192113956.
10
Drivers of COVID-19 policy stringency in 175 countries and territories: COVID-19 cases and deaths, gross domestic products per capita, and health expenditures.175 个国家和地区 COVID-19 政策严格程度的驱动因素:COVID-19 病例和死亡人数、人均国内生产总值和卫生支出。
J Glob Health. 2022 Dec 17;12:05049. doi: 10.7189/jogh.12.05049.

引用本文的文献

1
US state-level containment policies not associated with food insecurity changes during the early COVID-19 pandemic: a multilevel analysis.美国州级防控政策与新冠疫情早期粮食不安全状况变化无关:一项多层次分析
Public Health Nutr. 2025 Jan 23;28(1):e37. doi: 10.1017/S1368980024002696.
2
The Effects of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions on COVID-19 Cases, Hospitalizations, and Mortality: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.非药物干预对新冠病毒疾病病例、住院率和死亡率的影响:一项系统文献综述与荟萃分析
AJPM Focus. 2023 Jun 14;2(4):100125. doi: 10.1016/j.focus.2023.100125.
3
Using Grounded Theory to Identify Online Public Opinion in China to Improve Risk Management-The Case of COVID-19.

本文引用的文献

1
Global impacts of pre- and post-COVID-19 pandemic: Focus on socio-economic consequences.新冠疫情前后的全球影响:关注社会经济后果。
Sens Int. 2020;1:100042. doi: 10.1016/j.sintl.2020.100042. Epub 2020 Sep 23.
2
The role of economic structural factors in determining pandemic mortality rates: Evidence from the COVID-19 outbreak in France.经济结构因素在决定大流行死亡率中的作用:来自法国新冠疫情爆发的证据。
Res Int Bus Finance. 2020 Dec;54:101281. doi: 10.1016/j.ribaf.2020.101281. Epub 2020 Jun 23.
3
An analysis of the policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in France, Belgium, and Canada.
运用扎根理论识别中国网络舆情以改善风险管理——以 COVID-19 为例。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Nov 10;19(22):14754. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192214754.
对法国、比利时和加拿大针对新冠疫情所采取政策措施的分析。
Health Policy Technol. 2020 Dec;9(4):430-446. doi: 10.1016/j.hlpt.2020.09.002. Epub 2020 Sep 5.
4
Willingness to Accept Trade-Offs Among COVID-19 Cases, Social-Distancing Restrictions, and Economic Impact: A Nationwide US Study.愿意在新冠病例、社交隔离限制和经济影响之间权衡取舍:一项全美范围的美国研究。
Value Health. 2020 Nov;23(11):1438-1443. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.07.003. Epub 2020 Sep 4.
5
The impact of implementing HIV prevention policies therapy and control strategy among HIV and AIDS incidence cases in Malaysia.在马来西亚,实施艾滋病毒预防政策、治疗和控制策略对艾滋病毒和艾滋病发病病例的影响。
Infect Dis Model. 2020 Sep 30;5:755-765. doi: 10.1016/j.idm.2020.09.009. eCollection 2020.
6
Editorial: Root causes and policy dilemmas of the COVID-19 pandemic global disaster.社论:新冠疫情全球灾难的根源与政策困境
Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021 Jan;52:101892. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101892. Epub 2020 Sep 23.
7
The role of transport accessibility within the spread of the Coronavirus pandemic in Italy.交通可达性在意大利新冠疫情传播中的作用。
Saf Sci. 2021 Jan;133:104999. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104999. Epub 2020 Sep 14.
8
Economic uncertainty before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.新冠疫情之前及期间的经济不确定性。
J Public Econ. 2020 Nov;191:104274. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104274. Epub 2020 Sep 9.
9
Policies and innovations to battle Covid-19 - A case study of South Korea.抗击新冠疫情的政策与创新——以韩国为例
Health Policy Technol. 2020 Dec;9(4):587-597. doi: 10.1016/j.hlpt.2020.08.010. Epub 2020 Aug 28.
10
COVID-19 pandemic in the United States.美国的新冠疫情。
Health Policy Technol. 2020 Dec;9(4):623-638. doi: 10.1016/j.hlpt.2020.08.007. Epub 2020 Aug 27.