Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34793534›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

The impact of pandemic-related worry on cognitive functioning and risk-taking.

Kevin da Silva Castanheira, Madeleine Sharp, A Ross Otto

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Case Report: Neuropsychological Profile of a Patient With Intravascular Large B-Cell Lymphoma Following Infection and Vaccination.Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Neuroticism predicts national vaccination rates across 56 countries.Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.) · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
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

3 authors.

Kevin da Silva CastanheiraDepartment of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4435-6506
Madeleine SharpDepartment of Neurology and Neurosurgery, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
A Ross OttoDepartment of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Here, we sought to quantify the effects of experienced fear and worry, engendered by the COVID-19 pandemic, on both cognitive abilities-speed of information processing, task-set shifting, and proactive control-as well as economic risk-taking. Leveraging a repeated-measures cross-sectional design, we examined the performance of 1517 participants, collected during the early phase of the pandemic in the US (April-June 2020), finding that self-reported pandemic-related worry predicted deficits in information processing speed and maintenance of goal-related contextual information. In a classic economic risk-taking task, we observed that worried individuals' choices were more sensitive to the described outcome probabilities of risky actions. Overall, these results elucidate the cognitive consequences of a large-scale, unpredictable, and uncontrollable stressor, which may in turn play an important role in individuals' understanding of, and adherence to safety directives both in the current crisis and future public health emergencies.

Indexed as

AnxietyCognitionFearAdultChildCOVID-19Cross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMalePandemicsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID34793534
PMCPMC8601558

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.