ArticleInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2021
Context, design and conduct of the longitudinal COVID-19 psychological research consortium study-wave 3.
Article 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 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Longitudinal evidence over 2 years of the pandemic shows that poor mental health in people living with obesity may be underestimated.PloS one · 2024Article
- An 18-month follow-up of the Covid-19 psychology research consortium study panel: Survey design and fieldwork procedures for Wave 6.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2023Article
- Psychological responses to the COVID-19 pandemic are heterogeneous but have stabilised over time: 1 year longitudinal follow-up of the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) study.Psychological medicine · 2023Article
- Refuting the myth of a 'tsunami' of mental ill-health in populations affected by COVID-19: evidence that response to the pandemic is heterogeneous, not homogeneous.Psychological medicine · 2023Article
- Predicting resilience during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United Kingdom: Cross-sectional and longitudinal results.PloS one · 2023Article
- Is Protecting Older Adults from COVID-19 Ageism? A Comparative Cross-cultural Constructive Grounded Theory from the United Kingdom and Colombia.The Journal of social issues · 2022Article
- Modelling the complexity of pandemic-related lifestyle quality change and mental health: an analysis of a nationally representative UK general population sample.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2022Article
- Design, content, and fieldwork procedures of the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study - Wave 4.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2022Article
- Belongingness challenged: Exploring the impact on older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic.PloS one · 2022Article
- Article
- Tracking the Irish adult population during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic: A methodological report of the COVID-19 psychological research consortium (C19PRC) study in Ireland.Acta psychologica · 2021Article
- Context, design and conduct of the longitudinal COVID-19 psychological research consortium study-wave 3.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2021Article
- Detecting and describing stability and change in COVID-19 vaccine receptibility in the United Kingdom and Ireland.PloS one · 2021Article
- Sharing data to better understand one of the world's most significant shared experiences: data resource profile of the longitudinal COVID-19 psychological research consortium (C19PRC) study.International journal of population data science · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study aims to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the adult population in multiple countries. This paper describes the third wave of the UK survey (the 'parent' strand of the Consortium) during July-August 2020.
methodsAdults (N = 2025) who participated in the baseline and/or first follow-up surveys were reinvited to participate in this survey, which assessed: (1) COVID-19 related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours; (2) the occurrence of common mental 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. Weights were calculated using a survey raking algorithm to ensure that the cross-sectional sample is nationally representative in terms of gender, age, and household income, and representative of the baseline sample characteristics for household composition, ethnicity, urbanicity and born/raised in UK.
results1166 adults (57.6% of baseline participants) provided full interviews at Wave 3. The raking procedure successfully re-balanced the cross-sectional sample to within 1% of population estimates across selected socio-demographic characteristics.
conclusionThis paper demonstrates the strength of the C19PRC Study data to facilitate and stimulate interdisciplinary research addressing important public health questions relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.
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.