• 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

2020 - 2022年美国州政府对新冠疫情的政策应对:协调一致的异质性?

State Government Policy Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States 2020-2022: Concordant Heterogeneity?

作者信息

Koziol James A, Schnitzer Jan E

机构信息

Proteogenomics Research Institute for Systems Medicine, La Jolla, California 92037, USA.

出版信息

Med Res Arch. 2023 Apr;11(4). doi: 10.18103/mra.v11i4.3693.

DOI:10.18103/mra.v11i4.3693
PMID:37575472
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10421646/
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

We investigate governmental responses to the COVID-19 pandemic on a statewide basis between January 2020 and June 2022, together with mortality rates attributable to COVID-19 over the same period. Our aim is to demarcate the states' responses, and examine whether these differential responses are associated with COVID-19 mortality.

METHODS

Our study is based on individual state data from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker, OxCGRT. We focus on the Government Response Index, the most comprehensive index tracked in the OxCGRT dataset. We use multivariate techniques to group the states into clusters relative to their similarities on the Government Response Index, and determine mortality rates attributable to COVID-19 in the individual groups.

RESULTS

We find that the Government Response Index was sustained at relatively constant levels in the states, with two major transition periods: a rapid rise in stringency during April through June of 2020, and a gradual decline in May and June of 2021. Heterogeneity in the Government Response Index dramatically increased in 2022. No consistent patterns emerge when relating government stringency measures with COVID-19 mortality rates.

CONCLUSIONS

There is inconsistent evidence that increased governmental stringency is associated with lower COVID-19 mortality; judicious selection of time frames can lead to contrasting inferences. Political trends and motivations appear to have an outsized influence on governmental responses to the COVID-19 public health crisis, to the detriment of the populace.

摘要

目标

我们调查了2020年1月至2022年6月期间全州范围内政府对新冠疫情的应对措施,以及同期新冠疫情导致的死亡率。我们的目的是划分各州的应对措施,并研究这些不同的应对措施是否与新冠疫情死亡率相关。

方法

我们的研究基于牛津新冠疫情政府应对追踪器(OxCGRT)的各州个体数据。我们重点关注政府应对指数,这是OxCGRT数据集中追踪的最全面的指数。我们使用多变量技术,根据各州在政府应对指数上的相似性将其分组,并确定各个组中新冠疫情导致的死亡率。

结果

我们发现,政府应对指数在各州维持在相对稳定的水平,有两个主要的过渡时期:2020年4月至6月期间严格程度迅速上升,以及2021年5月和6月逐渐下降。2022年,政府应对指数的异质性显著增加。在将政府严格措施与新冠疫情死亡率联系起来时,没有出现一致的模式。

结论

没有一致的证据表明政府加强严格程度与降低新冠疫情死亡率相关;对时间框架的明智选择可能会导致相反的推断。政治趋势和动机似乎对政府应对新冠公共卫生危机的措施产生了过大的影响,对民众不利。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7af7/10421646/9a52de525325/nihms-1921618-f0015.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7af7/10421646/c6cf96ba3a35/nihms-1921618-f0001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7af7/10421646/0f4edb7bb582/nihms-1921618-f0006.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7af7/10421646/f770ffb3efc9/nihms-1921618-f0009.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7af7/10421646/b94648470c29/nihms-1921618-f0014.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7af7/10421646/9a52de525325/nihms-1921618-f0015.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7af7/10421646/c6cf96ba3a35/nihms-1921618-f0001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7af7/10421646/0f4edb7bb582/nihms-1921618-f0006.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7af7/10421646/f770ffb3efc9/nihms-1921618-f0009.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7af7/10421646/b94648470c29/nihms-1921618-f0014.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7af7/10421646/9a52de525325/nihms-1921618-f0015.jpg

相似文献

1
State Government Policy Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States 2020-2022: Concordant Heterogeneity?2020 - 2022年美国州政府对新冠疫情的政策应对:协调一致的异质性?
Med Res Arch. 2023 Apr;11(4). doi: 10.18103/mra.v11i4.3693.
2
Development of New Stringency Indices for Nonpharmacological Social Distancing Policies Implemented in Korea During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Random Forest Approach.韩国在 COVID-19 大流行期间实施的非药物性社交隔离政策的新严格指数的制定:随机森林方法。
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2024 Jan 8;10:e47099. doi: 10.2196/47099.
3
Political stringency, infection rates, and higher education students' adherence to government measures in the Nordic countries and the UK during the first wave of the COVID-19 outbreak.新冠疫情第一波期间北欧国家和英国的政治严厉程度、感染率与高等教育学生对政府措施的遵守情况
Prev Med. 2022 Nov;164:107245. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107245. Epub 2022 Sep 6.
4
Utility of the Comprehensive Health and Stringency Indexes in Evaluating Government Responses for Containing the Spread of COVID-19 in India: Ecological Time-Series Study.综合健康与严格指数在评估印度政府控制新冠疫情传播措施中的效用:生态时间序列研究。
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2023 Feb 10;9:e38371. doi: 10.2196/38371.
5
The 40 health systems, COVID-19 (40HS, C-19) study.40 个卫生系统应对 COVID-19 研究(40HS,C-19 研究)。
Int J Qual Health Care. 2021 Feb 20;33(1). doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzaa113.
6
Effective COVID-19 Control: A Comparative Analysis of the Stringency and Timeliness of Government Responses in Asia.有效控制 COVID-19:亚洲各国政府应对措施的严格性和及时性的比较分析。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Aug 17;18(16):8686. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18168686.
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
Does High Public Trust Amplify Compliance with Stringent COVID-19 Government Health Guidelines? A Multi-country Analysis Using Data from 102,627 Individuals.公众高度信任是否会增强对严格的新冠疫情政府健康指南的遵守?一项使用来自102,627个人的数据的多国分析。
Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2021 Jan 26;14:293-302. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S278774. eCollection 2021.
9
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.
10
Herding behavior and government policy responses: Evidence from COVID-19 effect.羊群行为与政府政策应对:来自新冠疫情影响的证据
Heliyon. 2023 Jul 5;9(7):e17964. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17964. eCollection 2023 Jul.

引用本文的文献

1
Ultra-Processed Food and Prostate Cancer Risk: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis.超加工食品与前列腺癌风险:一项系统评价与荟萃分析
Cancers (Basel). 2024 Nov 26;16(23):3953. doi: 10.3390/cancers16233953.
2
Worldwide Regional Differences in Obesity, Elderly, and COVID-19 Mortality: Do the Exceptions Prove the Rule?肥胖、老年人口与新冠病毒死亡率的全球区域差异:例外能否证明规律?
Med Res Arch. 2023 Aug;11(8). doi: 10.18103/mra.v11i8.4248. Epub 2023 Aug 29.

本文引用的文献

1
Excess Deaths Will Continue In The United States Until The Root Causes Are Addressed.美国的超额死亡人数将持续存在,直到根本原因得到解决。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2022 Nov;41(11):1562-1564. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2022.01103.
2
Relationship of political ideology of US federal and state elected officials and key COVID pandemic outcomes following vaccine rollout to adults: April 2021-March 2022.2021年4月至2022年3月美国联邦和州当选官员的政治意识形态与疫苗推出后成年人关键新冠疫情结果的关系
Lancet Reg Health Am. 2022 Dec;16:100384. doi: 10.1016/j.lana.2022.100384. Epub 2022 Oct 31.
3
What Federalism Means for the US Response to Coronavirus Disease 2019.
联邦制对美国应对2019冠状病毒病意味着什么。
JAMA Health Forum. 2020 May 1;1(5):e200510. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2020.0510.
4
Political environment and mortality rates in the United States, 2001-19: population based cross sectional analysis.2001-2019 年美国的政治环境与死亡率:基于人群的横断面分析。
BMJ. 2022 Jun 7;377:e069308. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2021-069308.
5
COVID-19 mortality in the United States: It's been two Americas from the start.美国的 COVID-19 死亡率:从一开始就是两个美国。
PLoS One. 2022 Apr 28;17(4):e0265053. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265053. eCollection 2022.
6
Déjà vu all over again: racial, ethnic and age disparities in mortality from influenza 1918-19 and COVID-19 in the United States.似曾相识:1918 - 19年流感大流行和美国新冠疫情期间死亡情况中的种族、族裔及年龄差异
Heliyon. 2022 Apr;8(4):e09299. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09299. Epub 2022 Apr 18.
7
The Growing Influence of State Governments on Population Health in the United States.美国州政府对人口健康的影响日益增大。
JAMA. 2022 Apr 12;327(14):1331-1332. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.3785.
8
A Hybrid Approach Toward COVID-19 Pandemic Modeling in Saudi Arabia Using the Modified Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered Model and Open Data Sources.一种利用改进的易感-暴露-感染-康复模型和开放数据源对沙特阿拉伯COVID-19大流行进行建模的混合方法。
Cureus. 2021 Dec 8;13(12):e20279. doi: 10.7759/cureus.20279. eCollection 2021 Dec.
9
Effects of government policies on the spread of COVID-19 worldwide.政府政策对全球 COVID-19 传播的影响。
Sci Rep. 2021 Oct 14;11(1):20495. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-99368-9.
10
Effective COVID-19 Control: A Comparative Analysis of the Stringency and Timeliness of Government Responses in Asia.有效控制 COVID-19:亚洲各国政府应对措施的严格性和及时性的比较分析。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Aug 17;18(16):8686. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18168686.