PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Barker, Forrest DL
AU  - Mirzadadeh, Ali
AU  - Feachem, Neelam Sekhri
TI  - State and County-Level Factors Associated with the Effectiveness of Stay-At-Home Orders Issued in the United States in Response to COVID-19
AID  - 10.1101/2023.04.27.23289229
DP  - 2023 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2023.04.27.23289229
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/28/2023.04.27.23289229.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/28/2023.04.27.23289229.full
AB  - Title State and County-Level Factors Associated with the Effectiveness of Stay-At-Home Orders Issued in the United States in Response to COVID-19Background To slow the spread of COVID-19 and protect medical facilities from overflowing, Stay-At-Home Orders (SAHOs) were issued in the United States during the spring of 2020. These orders had variable levels of effectiveness and profound consequences that continue to manifest long after their termination. This study aimed to assess if state and county-level population characteristics could explain variability in SAHO effectiveness as measured by the effective reproductive number (Rt).Methods We calculated the Rt for the 40 states which enacted SAHOs, and also for a sample of 289 counties that issued SAHOs in 2020, using EpiEstim R Package based on the states’ and counties’ daily case data. We determined SAHOs to be effective if, three weeks after their implementation, Rt was equal to or less than one. Wilcoxon rank sum tests and logistic regression were used to determine if population characteristics (age, income, level of education, political orientation, percent of non-English speaking people, racial and ethnic compositions), and percentage of frontline workers, percent of eligible people vaccinated by July 2021, level of viral transmission, and other Non-Pharmaceutical-Interventions (NPI) enacted before the SAHO, were associated with effectiveness of SAHOs.Results SAHOs were effective in 20 (50%) states. No significant differences were found in the characteristics studied between states with effective and ineffective SAHOs. SAHOs were effective in 54% of counties. Counties with effective SAHOs had fewer days of NPIs before the SAHOs in comparison to counties with ineffective SAHOs (Median 24 vs. 34, p-value 0.005). All other characteristics considered showed non-significant differences. In multivariate analysis, days of NPIs before the SAHOs remained the only significant factor for effective SAHOs in studied counties.Conclusion Our analysis suggests that SAHO effectiveness may be influenced by the implementation of prior public health interventions but is not likely to be related to the other characteristics studied. These findings should be considered when assessing when and how to implement SAHOs in future epidemics to limit the spread of an infectious respiratory disease.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe authors received no specific funding for this work.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.Not ApplicableThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:University of California, San FranciscoI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.Not ApplicableI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Not ApplicableI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.Not ApplicableAll relevant data will be in supporting information files