How to improve adherence with quarantine: rapid review of the evidence

  1. R.K. Webster
  2. S.K. Brooks
  3. L.E. Smith
  4. L. Woodland
  5. S. Wessely
  6. G.J. Rubin

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.03.17.20037408: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Two authors ran the search strategy on MEDLINE® on 27th January 2020, and two authors ran the search strategy on PsycINFO and Web of Science on 30th January 2020.
    PsycINFO
    suggested: (PsycINFO, RRID:SCR_014799)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    13,17,21 Strengths and limitations: Given the rapid and evolving nature of the coronavirus outbreak and the need for guidance to support quarantine efforts, this rapid review was limited to peer-reviewed publications of primary data without searching grey literature and did not include a formal quality assessment of included studies. As such it important to note the review is not exhaustive and may have missed key articles in the search results and relevant articles may have been excluded as they were published in languages other than English, Italian and French. In addition, readers should read our interpretations of the evidence with caution as the quality of the studies is not known. We did, however, search reference lists to identify papers that may not have been found in the initial search and engaged multiple members of the team in the screening process to improve methodological rigour. Our recommendations are primarily based on results from studies of small groups of people in home quarantine due to a small selection of infectious disease outbreaks in a limited number of countries. Whilst we anticipate that many of the risk factors for adherence would likely be similar for larger quarantine approaches, such as for whole towns or cities, and for other types of infectious disease outbreaks, there are also likely to be differences in such situations that mean the recommendations presented in this paper should only be applied to such situations cautiously. However, while t...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1016/j.puhe.2020.03.007
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.03.17.20037408v1 on medRxiv