ArticlePloS one2022
Subjective well-being during the 2020-21 global coronavirus pandemic: Evidence from high frequency time series data.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hope for happiness in an emerging country during the COVID-19 pandemic.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- Investigating the Magnitude and Persistence of COVID-19-Related Impacts on Affect and GPS-Derived Daily Mobility Patterns in Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood: Insights From a Smartphone-Based Intensive Longitudinal Study of Colorado-Based Youths From June 2016 to April 2022.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Young people's mental and social distress in times of international crisis: evidence from helpline calls, 2019-2022.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Estimation of Lockdowns' Impact on Well-Being in Selected Countries: An Application of Novel Bayesian Methods and Google Search Queries Data.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Associations between trait and state perceived stress and daily moods: COVID-19 stressful experiences as a moderator.Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We investigate how subjective well-being varied over the course of the global COVID-19 pandemic, with a special attention to periods of lockdown. We use weekly data from YouGov's Great Britain Mood Tracker Poll, and daily reports from Google Trends, that cover the entire period from six months before until eighteen months after the global spread of COVID-19. Descriptive trends and time-series models suggest that negative mood associated with the imposition of lockdowns returned to baseline within 1-3 weeks of lockdown implementation, whereas pandemic intensity, measured by the rate of fatalities from COVID-19 infection, was persistently associated with depressed affect. The results support the hypothesis that country-specific pandemic severity was the major contributor to increases in negative affect observed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that lockdowns likely ameliorated rather than exacerbated this effect.
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.