Cited by 601COVID-19 epidemiological studiesCOVID-19 Prevention and ImpactCOVID-19 impact on air quality

Physical distancing interventions and incidence of coronavirus disease 2019: natural experiment in 149 countries

Open access
Islam, Nazrul, Sharp, Stephen J, Chowell, Gerardo, Shabnam, Sharmin, Kawachi, Ichiro, Lacey, Ben, Massaro, Joseph M, D’Agostino, Ralph B +1 more·2020·BMJ

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the association between physical distancing interventions and incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) globally. Design: Natural experiment using interrupted time series analysis, with results synthesised using meta-analysis. Setting: 149 countries or regions, with data on daily reported cases of covid-19 from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and data on the physical distancing policies from the Oxford covid-19 Government Response Tracker. Participants: Individual countries or regions that implemented one of the five physical distancing interventions (closures of schools, workplaces, and public transport, restrictions on mass gatherings and public events, and restrictions on movement (lockdowns)) between 1 January and 30 May 2020. Main outcome measure: Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of covid-19 before and after implementation of physical distancing interventions, estimated using data to 30 May 2020 or 30 days post-intervention, whichever occurred first. IRRs were synthesised across countries using random effects meta-analysis. Results: On average, implementation of any physical distancing intervention was associated with an overall reduction in covid-19 incidence of 13% (IRR 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 0.89; n=149 countries). Closure of public transport was not associated with any additional reduction in covid-19 incidence when the other four physical distancing interventions were in place (pooled IRR with and without public transport closure was 0.85, 0.82 to 0.88; n=72, and 0.87, 0.84 to 0.91; n=32, respectively). Data from 11 countries also suggested similar overall effectiveness (pooled IRR 0.85, 0.81 to 0.89) when school closures, workplace closures, and restrictions on mass gatherings were in place. In terms of sequence of interventions, earlier implementation of lockdown was associated with a larger reduction in covid-19 incidence (pooled IRR 0.86, 0.84 to 0.89; n=105) compared with a delayed implementation of lockdown after other physical distancing interventions were in place (pooled IRR 0.90, 0.87 to 0.94; n=41). Conclusions: Physical distancing interventions were associated with reductions in the incidence of covid-19 globally. No evidence was found of an additional effect of public transport closure when the other four physical distancing measures were in place. Earlier implementation of lockdown was associated with a larger reduction in the incidence of covid-19. These findings might support policy decisions as countries prepare to impose or lift physical distancing measures in current or future epidemic waves.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.m2743

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [7]Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Team Scientific summary of pandemic influenza & its mitigation: scientific evidence base review. Department of Health, 2011.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Islam, N., Sharp, S. J., Chowell, G., Shabnam, S., Kawachi, I., Lacey, B., Massaro, J. M., D’Agostino, R. B., & White, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Georgia State University (US)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Boston University (US)
Corresponding author
Islam, Nazrul
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2020-07-15
Volume
370
Pages
m2743
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3043661845
Cited by
601
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 65 · 2023: 79 · 2022: 139 · 2021: 208 · 2020: 80
FWCI
19.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Apollo
Funders
Medical Research Council (MR/K023187/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › COVID-19 epidemiological studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › COVID-19 Prevention and Impact
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › COVID-19 impact on air quality
Keywords
COVID-19 incidence, lockdown, school closures, workplace closures, mobility restrictions, non-pharmaceutical interventions, natural experiment, Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker, interrupted time series
MeSH terms
Betacoronavirus, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Communicable Disease Control, Humans, Pneumonia, Viral, Social Isolation, Incidence, Coronavirus Infections, Internationality, Pandemics, Interrupted Time Series Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review