Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Do Men and Women “Lockdown” Differently? An Examination of Panama’s COVID-19 Sex-Segregated Social Distancing Policy

View ORCID ProfileLiana R. Woskie, View ORCID ProfileClare Wenham
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.30.20143388
Liana R. Woskie
1Health Policy and Health Economics at the London School of Economics (LSE) and a Research Fellow at the Harvard Global Health Institute (HGHI)
Roles: PhD Candidate
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Liana R. Woskie
Clare Wenham
2Assistant Professor of Global Health Policy at the London School of Economics (LSE)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Clare Wenham
  • For correspondence: C.Wenham@lse.ac.uk
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Mobility enables individuals to generate income and is a key input for empowerment and personal autonomy. Curtailment of aggregate social mobility - through policies such as: social distancing recommendations, shelter in place orders and state-enforced lockdowns - has become a primary strategy to address COVID-19 to limit social contact and reduce disease transmission. In this context, a small number of countries have instituted gender or sex-segregated mobility policies (Panama, Peru, and Bogota, Colombia). Through a retrospective analysis of global geographic positioning (GPS) data, this study presents an overview of aggregate mobility in Panama following the country’s implementation of a sex-segregated social distancing policy. Panama was selected as the nationwide sex-segregated policy was enforced throughout the lockdown period. The paper looks at mobility trends on female- and male-sex mobility days, examining differences by volume of movement and type of community locations visited as compared to pre-COVID trends. We find lower visits to all community location categories on female-mobility days. However, we found no significant difference in visits to “workplace” locations on male- v. female-mobility days. The paper discusses the implications of these findings in three areas: (1) Informal burden of labor and social reproduction, (2) Implications for women’s autonomy and safety in the home, and (3) Women’s economic empowerment. In addition, it raises open ethical questions regarding gender identity in COVID-19 policies.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This work was not funded.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The Use of Aggregated De-Identified Mobility Data to Assess the Impact of COVID-19. Not Human Subjects Research Determination. Harvard Human Resource Protection Problem.

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I 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).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Footnotes

  • co-chair of the Gender and COVID Working Group

Data Availability

All data is publicly accessible.

https://www.google.com/covid19/mobility/

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted July 03, 2020.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Do Men and Women “Lockdown” Differently? An Examination of Panama’s COVID-19 Sex-Segregated Social Distancing Policy
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Do Men and Women “Lockdown” Differently? An Examination of Panama’s COVID-19 Sex-Segregated Social Distancing Policy
Liana R. Woskie, Clare Wenham
medRxiv 2020.06.30.20143388; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.30.20143388
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Do Men and Women “Lockdown” Differently? An Examination of Panama’s COVID-19 Sex-Segregated Social Distancing Policy
Liana R. Woskie, Clare Wenham
medRxiv 2020.06.30.20143388; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.30.20143388

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Health Policy
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (160)
  • Allergy and Immunology (413)
  • Anesthesia (90)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (855)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (159)
  • Dermatology (97)
  • Emergency Medicine (248)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (393)
  • Epidemiology (8550)
  • Forensic Medicine (4)
  • Gastroenterology (383)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (1744)
  • Geriatric Medicine (167)
  • Health Economics (371)
  • Health Informatics (1237)
  • Health Policy (619)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (467)
  • Hematology (196)
  • HIV/AIDS (372)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (10281)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (552)
  • Medical Education (192)
  • Medical Ethics (51)
  • Nephrology (210)
  • Neurology (1670)
  • Nursing (97)
  • Nutrition (248)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (325)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (450)
  • Oncology (926)
  • Ophthalmology (263)
  • Orthopedics (100)
  • Otolaryngology (172)
  • Pain Medicine (112)
  • Palliative Medicine (40)
  • Pathology (252)
  • Pediatrics (534)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (247)
  • Primary Care Research (207)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (1764)
  • Public and Global Health (3832)
  • Radiology and Imaging (622)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (319)
  • Respiratory Medicine (520)
  • Rheumatology (207)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (165)
  • Sports Medicine (157)
  • Surgery (190)
  • Toxicology (36)
  • Transplantation (101)
  • Urology (74)