Institute for Applied Economic Research (Ipea), Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.
Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, and Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2022 Mar 17;17(3):e0265346. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265346. eCollection 2022.
Despite substantial evidence on the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), there is still limited evidence on the individual effects of different types of NPIs on social distancing, especially in low- and middle-income countries.
We used panel data analysis to evaluate the effects of mandatory social distancing rules on social distancing. We obtained data on six different categories of mandatory restrictions implemented in Brazil, by date and state, from state government gazettes (diários oficiais). We then defined a social distancing rules index (SDI) to measure the strictness of social distancing rules, assigning each a value of 2, 1, or 0 depending on whether restrictions were full, partial, or very limited/non-existent at every given time. A separate variable was defined for masking mandates. We tested whether the following variables were associated to social distancing: SDI, masking mandates, COVID-19 incidence, population socioeconomic status, and political orientation. Data is for each day between March 11th and November 10th, 2020 in the 27 Brazilian states (N = 6615).
Social distancing increased when social distancing rules were stricter, and decreased when the use of face masks became mandatory. The effects of different types of restrictions varied: suspending in-person classes and gatherings, religious/sport/cultural activities had a greater effect than other types of restrictions. Also, the effect of social distancing rules on people's behaviour decreased over time, especially when rules were stricter.
Mandatory social distancing rules must be adopted to increase social distancing. Stricter rules have a higher impact, but result in decreased compliance over time. Policymakers should prioritize more targeted policies.
尽管有大量关于非药物干预（NPIs）有效性的证据，但关于不同类型的 NPIs 对社交距离的个体影响的证据仍然有限，尤其是在中低收入国家。
我们使用面板数据分析评估强制性社交距离规则对社交距离的影响。我们从州政府公报（官方日报）中按日期和州获取了巴西实施的六类强制性限制措施的数据。然后，我们定义了一个社交距离规则指数（SDI）来衡量社交距离规则的严格程度，根据每个时间点的限制是完全、部分还是非常有限/不存在，给每个规则分配 2、1 或 0 的值。还定义了一个单独的掩蔽任务变量。我们测试了以下变量是否与社交距离有关：SDI、掩蔽任务、COVID-19 发病率、人口社会经济地位和政治倾向。数据来自 2020 年 3 月 11 日至 11 月 10 日期间巴西 27 个州的每一天（N = 6615）。
当社交距离规则更严格时，社交距离会增加，当强制使用口罩时，社交距离会减少。不同类型的限制的影响不同：暂停面授课程和集会、宗教/体育/文化活动比其他类型的限制有更大的影响。此外，社交距离规则对人们行为的影响随着时间的推移而减弱，尤其是当规则更严格时。
必须采取强制性的社交距离规则来增加社交距离。更严格的规则有更高的影响，但随着时间的推移，合规性会降低。政策制定者应优先考虑更有针对性的政策。
