Mitigation Interventions in the United States: An Exploratory Investigation of Determinants and Impacts

  1. Shenyang Guo
  2. Ruopeng An
  3. Timothy D. McBride
  4. Danlin Yu
  5. Linyun Fu
  6. Yuanyuan Yang

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

To examine the determinants and impacts of implementing the mitigation interventions to combat the COVID-19 disease in the United States during the first 5 weeks of the pandemic.

Method:

A content analysis identified nine types of mitigation interventions and the timing at which states enacted these strategies. A proportional hazard model, a multiple-event survival model, and a random-effect spatial error panel model in conjunction with a robust method analyzing zero-inflated and skewed outcomes were employed in the data analysis.

Findings:

Contradictory to the study hypothesis, states initially with a high COVID-19 prevalence rate enacted mitigation strategies slowly. Three mitigation strategies (nonessential business closure, large-gathering bans, and restaurant/bar limitations) showed positive impacts on reducing cumulative cases, new cases, and death rates across states.

Conclusion:

Some states may have missed optimal timing to implement mitigations. Swift implementation of mitigations is crucial. Reopening economy by fully lifting mitigation interventions is risky.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.29.20117259: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    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.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    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 10.1177/1049731520957415
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.29.20117259v1 on medRxiv