ArticleInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2023
An 18-month follow-up of the Covid-19 psychology research consortium study panel: Survey design and fieldwork procedures for Wave 6.
Article in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 2023. 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.
- Rethinking psychometrics through LLMs: how item semantics shape measurement and prediction in psychological questionnaires.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Using natural language processing to facilitate the harmonisation of mental health questionnaires: a validation study using real-world data.BMC psychiatry · 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
- Perceived manageability of debt and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: A UK population analysis.PloS one · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEstablished in March 2020, the C19PRC Study monitors the psychological and socio-economic impact of the pandemic in the UK and other countries. This paper describes the protocol for Wave 6 (August-September 2021).
methodsThe survey assessed: COVID-19 related experiences; experiences of common mental health disorders; psychological characteristics; and social and political attitudes. Adult participants from any previous wave (N = 3170) were re-invited, and sample replenishment procedures helped manage attrition. Weights were calculated using a survey raking algorithm to ensure the on-going original panel (from baseline) was nationally representative in terms of gender, age, and household income, amongst other factors.
results1643 adults were re-interviewed at Wave 6 (51.8% retention rate). Non-participation was higher younger adults, those born outside UK, and adults living in cities. Of the adults recruited at baseline, 54.3% (N = 1100) participated in Wave 6. New respondent (N = 415) entered the panel at this wave, resulting in cross-sectional sample for Wave 6 of 2058 adults. The raking procedure re-balanced the longitudinal panel to within 1.3% of population estimates for selected socio-demographic characteristics.
conclusionsThis paper outlines the growing strength of the publicly available C19PRC Study data for COVID-19-related interdisciplinary research.
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.