ArticleBMC medical research methodology2023
Recruiting and retaining community-based participants in a COVID-19 longitudinal cohort and social networks study: lessons from Victoria, Australia.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Participant recruitment and retention in a longitudinal study: experience from SARS-CoV-2 cohort in Ethiopia.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Observational
- Implementing a multi-centric cohort study during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in a resource-constrained setting: challenges, adaptive solutions, and lessons from Brazil.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2026Article
- Adherence to public health recommendations, restrictions and requirements among priority populations at risk for COVID-19 mortality and infection in Victoria, Australia: a serial cross-sectional study.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Article
- Well-being among people with long and short COVID: a serial cross-sectional study in Victoria, Australia.BMJ public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Participant engagement in a national longitudinal study of COVID-19: Insights from the INSPIRE study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Coping with COVID-19: a prospective cohort study on young Australians' anxiety and depression symptoms from 2020-2021.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2024Article
- Reported harassment and mental ill-health in a Canadian prospective cohort of women and men in welding and electrical trades.Annals of work exposures and health · 2024Article
- Article
- A longitudinal study of alcohol consumption among adults in Victoria, Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic.PloS one · 2024Article
- What Lies Beneath? The Role of Community Engagement in Translating COVID-19 Research Findings to Policy-Makers.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Article
- Cohort profile: recruitment and retention in a prospective cohort of Canadian healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.BMJ open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLongitudinal studies are critical to informing evolving responses to COVID-19 but can be hampered by attrition bias, which undermines their reliability for guiding policy and practice. We describe recruitment and retention in the Optimise Study, a longitudinal cohort and social networks study that aimed to inform public health and policy responses to COVID-19.
methodsOptimise recruited adults residing in Victoria, Australia September 01 2020-September 30 2021. High-frequency follow-up data collection included nominating social networks for study participation and completing a follow-up survey and four follow-up diaries each month, plus additional surveys if they tested positive for COVID-19 or were a close contact. This study compared number recruited to a-priori targets as of September 302,021, retention as of December 31 2021, comparing participants retained and not retained, and follow-up survey and diary completion October 2020-December 2021. Retained participants completed a follow-up survey or diary in each of the final three-months of their follow-up time. Attrition was defined by the number of participants not retained, divided by the number who completed a baseline survey by September 302,021. Survey completion was calculated as the proportion of follow-up surveys or diaries sent to participants that were completed between October 2020-December 2021.
resultsAt September 302,021, 663 participants were recruited and at December 312,021, 563 were retained giving an overall attrition of 15% (n = 100/663). Among the 563 retained, survey completion was 90% (n = 19,354/21,524) for follow-up diaries and 89% (n = 4936/5560) for monthly follow-up surveys. Compared to participants not retained, those retained were older (t-test, p < 0.001), and more likely to be female (χ
conclusionHigh levels of study retention and survey completion demonstrate a willingness to participate in a complex, longitudinal cohort study with high participant burden during a global pandemic. We believe comprehensive follow-up strategies, frequent dissemination of study findings to participants, and unique data collection systems have contributed to high levels of study retention.
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.