• 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

全球对疫情的应对:针对新冠疫情政策的实证聚类分析

The global response to the pandemic: An empirical cluster analysis of policies targeting COVID-19.

作者信息

Gauffin Karl, Östergren Olof, Cederström Agneta

机构信息

Department of Public Health Sciences, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.

Aging Research Center (ARC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2025 May 15;20(5):e0322692. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0322692. eCollection 2025.

DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0322692
PMID:40373002
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12080765/
Abstract

It is well known that countries differed in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of the timing and intensity of specific measures such as lockdowns, face masks and vaccine rollout. However, previous studies have not investigated systematic differences in the overall pandemic strategies. We use daily data from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker (OxCGRT), between January 2020 and December 2022 focusing on 16 key pandemic policies, including containment, economic, and health system measures, and apply a three-dimensional k-means clustering algorithm to identify distinct overarching strategies based on the type, intensity, and timing of the response adopted by different countries. We identify four distinct strategies; 1) the traditional infectious disease control approach, adopted by a wide range of high- and middle-income countries, which emphasises strict containment policies and movement restrictions, 2) the public health-oriented approach, adopted by developed welfare states with ageing populations and high health care expenditures, which is more flexible over time and focuses more on economic and health policies, such as income support and testing strategies, with less emphasis on stringent containment, 3) high stringency with gradual relaxation, and 4) reactive policies at a minimal level, both adopted by less democratic low- and middle income countries with substantial inequalities and with younger and less vulnerable populations. The findings contribute to understanding how different countries adapted to the pandemic and how these responses may relate to broader socio-political contexts, including welfare state arrangements and economic resilience.

摘要

众所周知,各国在应对新冠疫情时,在诸如封锁、口罩佩戴和疫苗推广等具体措施的时间和强度方面存在差异。然而,此前的研究并未调查整体疫情应对策略中的系统性差异。我们使用了牛津新冠疫情政府应对追踪器(OxCGRT)在2020年1月至2022年12月期间的每日数据,重点关注16项关键的疫情政策,包括遏制、经济和卫生系统措施,并应用三维k均值聚类算法,根据不同国家采取的应对措施的类型、强度和时间来确定不同的总体策略。我们识别出四种不同的策略:1)传统传染病控制方法,被广泛的高收入和中等收入国家采用,强调严格的遏制政策和行动限制;2)以公共卫生为导向的方法,被人口老龄化且医疗保健支出高的发达福利国家采用,随着时间推移更加灵活,更注重经济和卫生政策,如收入支持和检测策略,对严格遏制的强调较少;3)高度严格并逐步放松;4)最低限度的反应性政策,均被存在严重不平等且人口较年轻、较不易受影响的民主程度较低的低收入和中等收入国家采用。这些发现有助于理解不同国家如何适应疫情,以及这些应对措施如何与更广泛的社会政治背景相关联,包括福利国家安排和经济韧性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1d65/12080765/336ba509cbce/pone.0322692.g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1d65/12080765/7467516806cd/pone.0322692.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1d65/12080765/237af367bf86/pone.0322692.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1d65/12080765/336ba509cbce/pone.0322692.g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1d65/12080765/7467516806cd/pone.0322692.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1d65/12080765/237af367bf86/pone.0322692.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1d65/12080765/336ba509cbce/pone.0322692.g003.jpg

相似文献

1
The global response to the pandemic: An empirical cluster analysis of policies targeting COVID-19.全球对疫情的应对:针对新冠疫情政策的实证聚类分析
PLoS One. 2025 May 15;20(5):e0322692. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0322692. eCollection 2025.
2
Associations between the stringency of COVID-19 containment policies and health service disruptions in 10 countries.10 个国家的 COVID-19 遏制政策严格程度与卫生服务中断之间的关联。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2023 Apr 12;23(1):363. doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09363-1.
3
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.
4
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.
5
A global panel database of pandemic policies (Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker).一个全球性的大流行病政策面板数据库(牛津 COVID-19 政府应对追踪器)。
Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Apr;5(4):529-538. doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01079-8. Epub 2021 Mar 8.
6
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.
7
Public health matters: why is Latin America struggling in addressing the pandemic?公共卫生事务:为何拉丁美洲在应对大流行方面举步维艰?
J Public Health Policy. 2021 Mar;42(1):27-40. doi: 10.1057/s41271-020-00269-4. Epub 2021 Jan 28.
8
Effects of strict containment policies on COVID-19 pandemic crisis: lessons to cope with next pandemic impacts.严格封控政策对 COVID-19 大流行危机的影响:应对下一次大流行影响的经验教训。
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2023 Jan;30(1):2020-2028. doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-22024-w. Epub 2022 Aug 4.
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
Modeling for the Stringency of Lock-Down Policies: Effects of Macroeconomic and Healthcare Variables in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic.建模锁定政策的严格程度:应对 COVID-19 大流行的宏观经济和医疗变量的影响。
Front Public Health. 2022 May 25;10:872704. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.872704. eCollection 2022.

本文引用的文献

1
One Pandemic, Two Solutions: Comparing the U.S.-China Response and Health Priorities to COVID-19 from the Perspective of "Two Types of Control".一场大流行,两种解决方案:从“两类管控”视角比较中美对新冠疫情的应对及卫生优先事项
Healthcare (Basel). 2023 Jun 26;11(13):1848. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11131848.
2
A global analysis of the effectiveness of policy responses to COVID-19.全球对 COVID-19 政策应对效果的分析。
Sci Rep. 2023 Apr 6;13(1):5629. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-31709-2.
3
Divergent COVID-19 vaccine policies: Policy mapping of ten European countries.
差异化的 COVID-19 疫苗政策:十个欧洲国家的政策图谱。
Vaccine. 2023 Apr 24;41(17):2804-2810. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.03.036. Epub 2023 Mar 22.
4
Effectiveness assessment of non-pharmaceutical interventions: lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic.非药物干预措施的效果评估:从 COVID-19 大流行中吸取的经验教训。
Lancet Public Health. 2023 Apr;8(4):e311-e317. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(23)00046-4.
5
The Politics of Covid-19 Containment Policies in europe.欧洲新冠疫情防控政策的政治因素
Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2022 Oct 15;81:103206. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103206. Epub 2022 Aug 8.
6
A comprehensive evaluation of COVID-19 policies and outcomes in 50 countries and territories.对 50 个国家和地区的 COVID-19 政策和结果进行全面评估。
Sci Rep. 2022 May 25;12(1):8802. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-12853-7.
7
Estimating and explaining cross-country variation in the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions during COVID-19.估算并解释 COVID-19 期间非药物干预措施在各国之间效果的差异。
Sci Rep. 2022 May 9;12(1):7526. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-11362-x.
8
Revisiting COVID-19 policies: 10 evidence-based recommendations for where to go from here.重新审视 COVID-19 政策:接下来该怎么做的 10 项基于证据的建议。
BMC Public Health. 2021 Nov 13;21(1):2084. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-12082-z.
9
Pandemics Throughout the History.历史上的大流行病。
Cureus. 2021 Sep 20;13(9):e18136. doi: 10.7759/cureus.18136. eCollection 2021 Sep.
10
Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Comparison of Strategies in Six Countries.对新冠疫情的应对:六个国家的策略比较
Front Public Health. 2021 Sep 30;9:708496. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.708496. eCollection 2021.