Background
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, most countries have introduced non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as stay-at-home orders, to reduce person-to-person contact and break trains of transmission. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effect of different public health restrictions on mobility across different countries and cultures. The University of Bern COVID-19 Living Evidence database of COVID-19 and SARS-COV-2 publications was searched for retrospective or prospective studies evaluating the impact of COVID-19 public health restrictions on Google Mobility. Titles and abstracts were independently screened by two authors. Information from included studies was extracted by one researcher and double checked by another. Risk of bias of included articles was assessed using the Newcastle Ottowa Scale. Given the heterogeneous nature of the designs used, a narrative synthesis was undertaken. From the search, 1672 references were identified, of which 14 were included in the narrative synthesis. All studies reported data from the first wave of the pandemic, with Google Mobility Scores included from January to August 2020, with most studies analysing data during the first two months of the pandemic. Seven studies were assessed as having a moderate risk of bias and seven as a low risk of bias. Countries that introduced more stringent public health restrictions experienced greater reductions in mobility, through increased time at home and reductions in visits to shops, workplaces and use of public transport. Stay-at-home orders were the most effective of the individual strategies, whereas mask mandates had little effect of mobility.
Conclusions
Public health restrictions, particularly stay-at-home orders have significantly impacted on transmission prevention behaviours. Further research is required to understand how to effectively address pandemic fatigue and to support the safe return back to normal day-to-day behaviours.
Green social prescribing, which includes the referral of patients to nature-based activities, could exacerbate inequalities between people with disabilities and people without. Research suggests fishing could be more inclusive relative to other outdoor sports. To understand if fishing is an inclusive sport, and the potential benefits and barriers to prescribing fishing, the present study compared participation, motivators and barriers to fishing, between anglers with and without disabilities. UK adults were invited to participate in an online survey. Chi-square tests examined differences between anglers with and without disabilities regarding the type of fishing anglers engaged in, the frequency of fishing, the length of time spent fishing, motivators for fishing and barriers to fishing. Among 1799 anglers (97.5% male), 292 (16.2%) anglers reported having a disability. Most anglers with disabilities were over 55 years old (56.5%). There was no difference in fishing participation, or motivators for fishing, between anglers with and without disabilities; however, anglers with disabilities were more likely to report ‘costs’, ‘lack of transport’ and ‘having no one to go with them’ as barriers. Overall, there appeared to be no differences in fishing participation between anglers with versus without disabilities, although additional barriers to participation may exist.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.