ArticlePloS one2024
Longitudinal prediction of primary school children's COVID-related future anxiety in the second year of the pandemic in Germany.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Effect of the COVID Pandemic on Clinical Psychology Research: A Bibliometric Analysis.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although research has confirmed that the first COVID-19-related lockdown has increased stress and mental health problems in children, less is known about the longer-term effects of the pandemic on children's COVID-related future anxiety (CRFA). Because of CRFA's potentially debilitating effects, risk and resilience factors against this anxiety were investigated. To this end, n = 140 children (49% female) in 3rd and 4th grade classrooms in Germany were asked to perform a working memory task and to self-report about their CRFA and emotion regulation in December 2020 and in May 2021. More maladaptive emotion regulation in December 2020 contributed to the explanation of a high CRFA score in May 2021, whereas a better performance on working memory updating contributed a lower CRFA score later when controls were in place. These results were confirmed when children's CRFA in December 2020 was included in the prediction of their later CRFA. They suggest that maladaptive strategies of emotion regulation, such as rumination, may explain higher or increasing levels of CRFA, whereas efficient working memory updating may be an indicator of processing information in a way which shields children from CRFA-related thoughts. The concepts underlying these variables should be included in prevention and intervention efforts.
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.