ArticleInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2022
Design, content, and fieldwork procedures of the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study - Wave 4.
Article in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 2022. 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.
- 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
- State of Ireland's mental health: findings from a nationally representative survey.Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences · 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
- A gateway conspiracy? Belief in COVID-19 conspiracy theories prospectively predicts greater conspiracist ideation.PloS one · 2022Article
- 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
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis paper outlines fieldwork procedures for Wave 4 of the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study in the UK during November-December 2020.
methodsRespondents provided data on socio-political attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours, and mental health disorders (anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress). In Phase 1, adults (N = 2878) were reinvited to participate. At Phase 2, new recruitment: (i) replenished the longitudinal strand to account for attrition; and (ii) oversampled from the devolved UK nations to facilitate robust between-country analyses for core study outcomes. Weights were calculated using a survey raking algorithm to ensure the longitudinal panel was representative of the baseline sample characteristics.
resultsIn Phase 1, 1796 adults were successfully recontacted and provided full interviews at Wave 4 (62.4% retention rate). In Phase 2, 292 new respondents were recruited to replenish the panel, as well as 1779 adults from Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, who were representative of the socio-political composition of the adult populations in these nations. The raking procedure successfully re-balanced the longitudinal panel to within 1% of population estimates for selected socio-demographic characteristics.
conclusionThe C19PRC Study offers a unique opportunity 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.