Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33166018›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2021

Monitoring the psychological, social, and economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the population: Context, design and conduct of the longitudinal COVID-19 psychological research consortium (C19PRC) study.

Orla McBride, Jamie Murphy, Mark Shevlin, Jilly Gibson-Miller, Todd K Hartman, Philip Hyland, Liat Levita, Liam Mason, Anton P Martinez, Ryan McKay and 7 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

68 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Data collection in pandemic times: the case of the Belgian COVID-19 health surveys.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2023
    Article
  20. Article

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Orla McBrideUlster University, Coleraine, Northern Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-3399-9466
Jamie MurphyUlster University, Coleraine, Northern Ireland.
Mark ShevlinUlster University, Coleraine, Northern Ireland.
Jilly Gibson-MillerUniversity of Sheffield, Sheffield, England.
Todd K HartmanUniversity of Sheffield, Sheffield, England.
Philip HylandMaynooth University, Maynooth, Republic of Ireland.
Liat LevitaUniversity of Sheffield, Sheffield, England.
Liam MasonUniversity College London, London, England.
Anton P MartinezUniversity of Sheffield, Sheffield, England.ORCID 0000-0002-7318-1020
Ryan McKayRoyal Holloway, University of London, London, England.
Thomas Va StocksUniversity of Sheffield, Sheffield, England.
Kate M BennettUniversity of Liverpool, Liverpool, England.
Frédérique VallièresTrinity College Dublin, Dublin, Republic of Ireland.
Thanos KaratziasNapier University, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Carmen ValienteComplutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Carmelo VazquezComplutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Richard P BentallUniversity of Sheffield, Sheffield, England.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/S006613/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe C19PRC study aims to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the adult population of the UK, Republic of Ireland, and Spain. This paper describes the conduct of the first two waves of the UK survey (the "parent" strand of the Consortium) during March-April 2020.

methodsA longitudinal, internet panel survey was designed to assess: (1) COVID-19 related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors; (2) the occurrence of common mental health disorders as well as the role of (3) psychological factors and (4) social and political attitudes, in influencing the public's response to the pandemic. Quota sampling (age, sex, and household income) was used to recruit a nationally representative sample of adults.

resultsTwo thousand and twenty five adults were recruited at baseline, and 1406 were followed-up one-month later (69.4% retention rate). The baseline sample was representative of the UK population in relation to economic activity, ethnicity, and household composition. Attrition was predicted by key socio-demographic characteristics, and an inverse probability weighting procedure was employed to ensure the follow-up sample was representative of the baseline sample.

conclusionThe C19PRC study data has strong generalizability to facilitate and stimulate interdisciplinary research on important public health questions relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Indexed as

Socioeconomic FactorsCOVID-19HumansResearchCOVID-19general populationlongitudinalpsychologicalsurvey methodology

Identifiers

PMID33166018
PMCPMC7992290

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.