ArticleWomen's health (London, England)
No one listens to us, we know this, so we participated: Qualitative evidence from menstruation research during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in Women's health (London, England). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe created a survey to assess menstrual side effects after COVID-19 vaccination when we noticed news stories that denied or discounted the experiences of tens of thousands of menstruating and formerly menstruating people who reported experiencing bleeding changes. This survey had an unprecedented response hundreds of times higher than we had anticipated (
objectivesWe investigated what motivated our sample to participate without remuneration to understand both general motivations for survey participation as well as why this survey captured the interest of so many.
designWe used open-ended responses from our online, mixed-method survey collected from April to October 2021.
methodsUsing computer-assisted qualitative data analysis tools in R, we conducted a thematic analysis on open-ended responses. We used topic modeling to cluster the data, synthesize responses across 22,737 participants, and inform the themes summarizing the responses to "What is your interest in this project?" We compared and contrasted responses across groups (racial identity, ethnicity, gender) to examine whether the themes were representative across the demographic groups in our study.
resultsThe themes that characterized participants' interest in participating were vaccine effects and women's/people's health, personal experience related to the vaccine, and a love for science and data. We compared responses among demographic subgroups to avoid an overfocus on majority group responses and found the themes were reflected across each group. Lastly, we found our themes reflected multiple types of altruism.
conclusionThese results were important in showing how emergent research that focuses on the concerns of potential participants can encourage high response rates from both marginalized and majority communities. Inclusive practices and familiarity with the research team built credibility that engendered trust with the public.
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.