Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34847065›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

Using Ecological Momentary Assessment to Study the Development of COVID-19 Worries in Sweden: Longitudinal Study.

Peter Johannes Schulz, Elin M Andersson, Nicole Bizzotto, Margareta Norberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

4 authors.

Peter Johannes SchulzInstitute of Communication and Health, Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-4281-489X
Elin M AnderssonDepartment of Psychology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-9847-4196
Nicole BizzottoInstitute of Communication and Health, Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-4730-1367
Margareta NorbergDepartment of Epidemiology and Global Health, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-2475-7131

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe foray of COVID-19 around the globe has certainly instigated worries in many people, and lockdown measures may well have triggered more specific worries. Sweden, more than other countries, relied on voluntary measures to fight the pandemic. This provides a particularly interesting context to assess people's reactions to the threat of the pandemic.

objectiveThe general aim of this study was to better understand the worried reactions to the virus and the associated lockdown measures. As there have been very few longitudinal studies in this area published to date, development of feelings of worry over time was analyzed over a longer range than in previous research. Affective variables, worry in particular, were included because most of the research in this field has focused on cognitive variables. To employ new methodology, ecological momentary assessment was used for data collection and a multilevel modeling approach was adopted for data analysis.

methodsResults were based on an unbalanced panel sample of 260 Swedish participants filling in 3226 interview questionnaires by smartphone over a 7-week period in 2020 during the rapid rise of cases in the early phase of the pandemic. Causal factors considered in this study included the perceived severity of an infection, susceptibility of a person to the threat posed by the virus, perceived efficacy of safeguarding measures, and assessment of government action against the spread of COVID-19. The effect of these factors on worries was traced in two analytical steps: the effects at the beginning of the study and the effect on the trend during the study.

resultsThe level of general worry related to COVID-19 was modest (mean 6.67, SD 2.54 on an 11-point Likert scale); the increase during the study period was small, but the interindividual variation of both the worry level and its increase over time was large. Findings confirmed that the hypothesized causal factors (severity of infection, susceptibility to the threat of the virus, efficacy of safeguarding, and assessment of government preventive action) did indeed affect the level of worry.

conclusionsThe results confirmed earlier research in a very special case and demonstrated the usefulness of a different study design, which takes a longitudinal perspective, and a new type of data analysis borrowed from multilevel study design.

Indexed as

COVID-19AnxietyCommunicable Disease ControlEcological Momentary AssessmentHumansLongitudinal StudiesSARS-CoV-2SwedencoronavirusCOVID-19EMAfearlongitudinal studiespandemicsworry

Identifiers

PMID34847065
PMCPMC8669580

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.