ArticleBMJ open2021
COVID-19 welbeing study: a protocol examining perceived coercion and psychological well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic by means of an online survey, asynchronous virtual focus groups and individual interviews.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceived coercion amongst healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Pandemic lockdowns: who feels coerced and why? - a study on perceived coercion, perceived pressures and procedural justice during the UK COVID-19 lockdowns.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Reductions in anxiety, depression and insomnia in health care workers using a non-pharmaceutical intervention.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- A meta-review of psychological resilience during COVID-19.Npj mental health research · 2022Review
- Aggressive measures, rising inequalities, and mass formation during the COVID-19 crisis: An overview and proposed way forward.Frontiers in public health · 2022Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in many countries applying restrictive measures, such as lockdown, to contain and prevent further spread. The psychological impact of lockdown and working as a healthcare worker on the frontline has been chronicled in studies pertaining to previous infectious disease pandemics that have reported the presence of depressive symptoms, anxiety, insomnia, and post-traumatic stress symptoms. Potentially linked to psychological well-being and not yet studied is the possibility that lockdown and working on the frontline of the pandemic are associated with perceptions of coercion. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The present study aimed to examine perceived coercion in those who have experienced COVID-19-related lockdown and/or worked as a frontline healthcare worker across three European countries. It aimed to describe how such perceptions may impact on psychological well-being, coping and post-traumatic growth. It will employ an explanatory mixed-methods research methodology consisting of an online survey and online asynchronous virtual focus groups (AVFGs) and individual interviews. χ ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by University College London's Research Ethics Committee under Project ID Number 7335/004. Results will be disseminated by means of peer-reviewed publications and at national and/or international conferences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.