Social distancing in response to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) in the United States
PLoS ONE, ISSN: 1932-6203, Vol: 15, Issue: 9 September, Page: e0239025
2020
- 93Citations
- 213Captures
- 1Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations93
- Citation Indexes91
- 91
- Policy Citations2
- 2
- Captures213
- Readers213
- 213
- Mentions1
- Blog Mentions1
- Blog1
Article Description
In order to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2, much of the US was placed under social distancing guidelines during March 2020. We characterized risk perceptions and adherence to social distancing recommendations in March 2020 among US adults aged 18+ in an online survey with age and gender quotas to match the general US population (N = 713). We used multivariable logistic and linear regression to estimate associations between age (by generational cohort) and these outcomes. The median perceived risk of infection with COVID-19 within the next month was 32%, and 65% of individuals were practicing more social distancing than before the outbreak. Baby Boomers had lower perceived risk than Millennials (-10.6%, 95% CI: -16.2%, -5.0%), yet were more frequently social distancing (OR = 1.64; 95% CI: 1.05, 2.56). Public health outreach should focus on raising compliance with social distancing recommendations, especially among high risk groups. Efforts to address risk perceptions alone may be inadequate.
Bibliographic Details
10.1371/journal.pone.0239025; 10.1371/journal.pone.0239025.g002; 10.1371/journal.pone.0239025.t001; 10.1371/journal.pone.0239025.g003; 10.1371/journal.pone.0239025.g001; 10.1371/journal.pone.0239025.t002
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85090839718&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239025; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32915884; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239025.g002; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239025.g002; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239025.t001; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239025.t001; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239025.g003; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239025.g003; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239025.g001; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239025.g001; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239025; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239025.t002; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239025.t002; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239025.g001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239025.g001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239025; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239025; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239025.t001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239025.t001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239025.g003; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239025.g003; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239025.g002; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239025.g002; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239025.t002; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239025.t002; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239025&type=printable
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know