Objective Although anecdotal evidence indicates the effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) social-distancing policies, their effectiveness in relation to what is driven by public awareness and voluntary actions needs to be determined. We evaluated the effectiveness of the 6 most common social-distancing policies in the United States (statewide stay-at-home orders, limited stay-at-home orders, nonessential business closures, bans on large gatherings, school closure mandates, and limits on restaurants and bars) during the early stage of the pandemic. Methods We applied difference-in-differences and event-study methodologies to evaluate the effect of the 6 social-distancing policies on Google-released aggregated, anonymized daily location data on movement trends over time by state for all 50 states and the District of Columbia in 6 location categories: retail and recreation, grocery stores and pharmacies, parks, transit stations, workplaces, and residences. We compared the outcome of interest in states that adopted COVID-19–related policies with states that did not adopt such policies, before and after these policies took effect during February 15–April 25, 2020. Results Statewide stay-at-home orders had the strongest effect on reducing out-of-home mobility and increased the time people spent at home by an estimated 2.5 percentage points (15.2%) from before to after policies took effect. Limits on restaurants and bars ranked second and resulted in an increase in presence at home by an estimated 1.4 percentage points (8.5%). The other 4 policies did not significantly reduce mobility. Conclusion Statewide stay-at-home orders and limits on bars and restaurants were most closely linked to reduced mobility in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, whereas the potential benefits of other such policies may have already been reaped from voluntary social distancing. Further research is needed to understand how the effect of social-distancing policies changes as voluntary social distancing wanes during later stages of a pandemic.
IMPORTANCEGiven high rates of opioid-related fatal overdoses, improving naloxone access has become a priority. States have implemented different types of naloxone access laws (NALs) and there is controversy over which of these policies, if any, can curb overdose deaths. We hypothesize that NALs granting direct authority to pharmacists to provide naloxone will have the greatest potential for reducing fatal overdoses.OBJECTIVES To identify which types of NALs, if any, are associated with reductions in fatal overdoses involving opioids and examine possible implications for nonfatal overdoses.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS State-level changes in both fatal and nonfatal overdoses from 2005 to 2016 were examined across the 50 states and the District of Columbia after adoption of NALs using a difference-in-differences approach while estimating the magnitude of the association for each year relative to time of adoption. Policy environments across full state populations were represented in the primary data set. The association for 3 types of NALs was associated: NALs providing direct authority to pharmacists to prescribe, NALs providing indirect authority to prescribe, and other NALs. The study was conducted from January 2017 to January 2019.EXPOSURES Fatal and nonfatal overdoses in states that adopted NAL laws were compared with those in states that did not adopt NAL laws. Further consideration was given to the type of NAL passed in terms of its association with these outcomes. We hypothesize that NALs granting direct authority to pharmacists to provide naloxone will have the greatest potential for reducing fatal overdoses. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESFatal overdoses involving opioids were the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were nonfatal overdoses resulting in emergency department visits and Medicaid naloxone prescriptions. RESULTSIn this evaluation of the dispensing of naloxone across the United States, NALs granting direct authority to pharmacists were associated with significant reductions in fatal overdoses, but they may also increase nonfatal overdoses seen in emergency department visits. The effect sizes for fatal overdoses grew over time relative to adoption of the NALs. These policies were estimated to reduce opioid-rated fatal overdoses by 0.387 (95% CI, 0.119-0.656; P = .007) per 100 000 people in 3 or more years after adoption. There was little evidence of an association for indirect authority to dispense (increase by 0.
IMPORTANCE In 2011, critical congenital heart disease was added to the US Recommended Uniform Screening Panel for newborns, but whether state implementation of screening policies has been associated with infant death rates is unknown. OBJECTIVE To assess whether there was an association between implementation of state newborn screening policies for critical congenital heart disease and infant death rates. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Observational study with group-level analyses. A difference-in-differences analysis was conducted using the National Center for Health Statistics’ period linked birth/infant death data set files for 2007–2013 for 26 546 503 US births through June 30, 2013, aggregated by month and state of birth. EXPOSURES State policies were classified as mandatory or nonmandatory (including voluntary policies and mandates that were not yet implemented). As of June 1, 2013, 8 states had implemented mandatory screening policies, 5 states had voluntary screening policies, and 9 states had adopted but not yet implemented mandates. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Numbers of early infant deaths (between 24 hours and 6 months of age) coded for critical congenital heart disease or other/unspecified congenital cardiac causes for each state-month birth cohort. RESULTS Between 2007 and 2013, there were 2734 deaths due to critical congenital heart disease and 3967 deaths due to other/unspecified causes. Critical congenital heart disease death rates in states with mandatory screening policies were 8.0 (95% CI, 5.4–10.6) per 100 000 births (n = 37) in 2007 and 6.4 (95% CI, 2.9–9.9) per 100 000 births (n = 13) in 2013 (for births by the end of July); for other/unspecified cardiac causes, death rates were 11.7 (95% CI, 8.6–14.8) per 100 000 births in 2007 (n = 54) and 10.3 (95% CI, 5.9–14.8) per 100 000 births (n = 21) in 2013. Early infant deaths from critical congenital heart disease through December 31, 2013, decreased by 33.4% (95% CI, 10.6%–50.3%), with an absolute decline of 3.9 (95% CI, 3.6–4.1) deaths per 100 000 births after states implemented mandatory screening compared with prior periods and states without screening policies. Early infant deaths from other/unspecified cardiac causes declined by 21.4% (95% CI, 6.9%–33.7%), with an absolute decline of 3.5 (95% CI, 3.2–3.8) deaths per 100 000 births. No significant decrease was associated with nonmandatory screening policies. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Statewide implementation of mandatory policies for newborn screening for critical congenital heart disease was associated with a significant decrease in infant cardiac deaths between 2007 and 2013 compared with states without these policies.
Since 2007, many states passed laws prohibiting text messaging while driving. Using vehicular fatality data from across the United States and standard difference-in-differences techniques, bans appear moderately successful at reducing single-vehicle, single-occupant accidents if bans are universally applied and enforced as a primary offense. Bans enforced as secondary offenses, however, have at best no effect on accidents. Any reduction in accidents following texting bans is short-lived, however, with accidents returning to near former levels within a few months. This is suggestive of drivers reacting to the announcement of the legislation only to return to old habits shortly afterward. (JEL D12, K42, R41)
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.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.