Strengthening policy coding methodologies to improve COVID-19 disease modeling and policy responses: a proposed coding framework and recommendations

Background In recent months, multiple efforts have sought to characterize COVID-19 social distancing policy responses. These efforts have used various coding frameworks, but many have relied on coding methodologies that may not adequately describe the gradient in social distancing policies as states “re-open.” Methods We developed a COVID-19 social distancing intensity framework that is sufficiently specific and sensitive to capture this gradient. Based on a review of policies from a 12 U.S. state sample, we developed a social distancing intensity framework consisting of 16 domains and intensity scales of 0–5 for each domain. Results We found that the states with the highest average daily intensity from our sample were Pennsylvania, Washington, Colorado, California, and New Jersey, with Georgia, Florida, Massachusetts, and Texas having the lowest. While some domains (such as restaurants and movie theaters) showed bimodal policy intensity distributions compatible with binary (yes/no) coding, others (such as childcare and religious gatherings) showed broader variability that would be missed without more granular coding. Conclusion This detailed intensity framework reveals the granularity and nuance between social distancing policy responses. Developing standardized approaches for constructing policy taxonomies and coding processes may facilitate more rigorous policy analysis and improve disease modeling efforts.

[1]  Mathias Unberath,et al.  A County-level Dataset for Informing the United States' Response to COVID-19 , 2020, ArXiv.

[2]  K. Ethier,et al.  Timing of Community Mitigation and Changes in Reported COVID-19 and Community Mobility ― Four U.S. Metropolitan Areas, February 26–April 1, 2020 , 2020, MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report.

[3]  J. Fowler,et al.  The Effect of Stay-at-Home Orders on COVID-19 Infections in the United States , 2020, medRxiv.

[4]  S. Esposito,et al.  Universal use of face masks for success against COVID-19: evidence and implications for prevention policies , 2020, European Respiratory Journal.

[5]  Vineet D. Menachery,et al.  Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States , 2020, Emerging infectious diseases.

[6]  A. Morris,et al.  Effects of Government Mandated Social Distancing Measures on Cumulative Incidence of COVID-19 in the United States and its Most Populated Cities , 2020, medRxiv.

[7]  Christos Nicolaides,et al.  Rationing social contact during the COVID-19 pandemic: Transmission risk and social benefits of US locations , 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[8]  N. Fullman,et al.  Pandemic Politics: Timing State-Level Social Distancing Responses to COVID-19 , 2020, medRxiv.

[9]  Pavel Dedera,et al.  Mathematical Modelling of Study , 2011 .

[10]  Aaron Yelowitz,et al.  Strong Social Distancing Measures In The United States Reduced The COVID-19 Growth Rate. , 2020, Health affairs.

[11]  Babak Heydari,et al.  The Immediate Effect of COVID-19 Policies on Social-Distancing Behavior in the United States , 2020, medRxiv.

[12]  R. Kalluri,et al.  Enacting national social distancing policies corresponds with dramatic reduction in COVID19 infection rates , 2020, medRxiv.

[13]  J. Horney,et al.  Associations Between State Public Health Agency Structure and Pace and Extent of Implementation of Social Distancing Control Measures. , 2020, Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP.

[14]  E. Dong,et al.  Association between mobility patterns and COVID-19 transmission in the USA: a mathematical modelling study , 2020, The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

[15]  Hilde van der Togt,et al.  Publisher's Note , 2003, J. Netw. Comput. Appl..