Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39874576›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Health and Experiences During the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Children and Young People: Analysis of Free-Text Responses From the Children and Young People With Long COVID Study.

Natalia K Rojas, Sam Martin, Mario Cortina-Borja, Roz Shafran, Lana Fox-Smith, Terence Stephenson, Brian C F Ching, Anaïs d'Oelsnitz, Tom Norris, Yue Xu and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Natalia K RojasDivision of Surgery & Interventional Science, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6615-9618
Sam MartinDivision of Surgery & Interventional Science, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4466-8374
Mario Cortina-BorjaUCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0627-2624
Roz ShafranUCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2729-4961
Lana Fox-SmithUCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7434-2762
Terence StephensonUCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8871-7847
Brian C F ChingDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2179-9793
Anaïs d'OelsnitzUCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-0770-3049
Tom NorrisDivision of Surgery & Interventional Science, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9140-0776
Yue XuDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, Faculty of Brain Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5239-7378
Kelsey McOwatImmunisation Department, UK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4170-1498
Emma DalrympleUCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6645-932X
Isobel HeymanUCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7358-9766
Tamsin FordDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5295-4904
Trudie ChalderDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0775-1045
Ruth SimmonsImmunisation Department, UK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8156-0146
CLoCk Consortium *See Authors' Contributions, .
Snehal M Pinto PereiraDivision of Surgery & Interventional Science, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0876-8757

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe literature is equivocal as to whether the predicted negative mental health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic came to fruition. Some quantitative studies report increased emotional problems and depression; others report improved mental health and well-being. Qualitative explorations reveal heterogeneity, with themes ranging from feelings of loss to growth and development.

objectiveThis study aims to analyze free-text responses from children and young people participating in the Children and Young People With Long COVID study to get a clearer understanding of how young people were feeling during the pandemic.

methodsA total of 8224 free-text responses from children and young people were analyzed using InfraNodus, an artificial intelligence-powered text network analysis tool, to determine the most prevalent topics. A random subsample of 411 (5%) of the 8224 responses underwent a manual sentiment analysis; this was reweighted to represent the general population of children and young people in England.

resultsExperiences fell into 6 main overlapping topical clusters: school, examination stress, mental health, emotional impact of the pandemic, social and family support, and physical health (including COVID-19 symptoms). Sentiment analysis showed that statements were largely negative (314/411, 76.4%), with a small proportion being positive (57/411, 13.9%). Those reporting negative sentiment were mostly female (227/314, 72.3%), while those reporting positive sentiment were mostly older (170/314, 54.1%). There were significant observed associations between sentiment and COVID-19 status as well as sex (P=.001 and P<.001, respectively) such that the majority of the responses, regardless of COVID-19 status or sex, were negative; for example, 84.1% (227/270) of the responses from female individuals and 61.7% (87/141) of those from male individuals were negative. There were no observed associations between sentiment and all other examined demographics. The results were broadly similar when reweighted to the general population of children and young people in England: 78.52% (negative), 13.23% (positive), and 8.24% (neutral).

conclusionsWe used InfraNodus to analyze free-text responses from a large sample of children and young people. The majority of responses (314/411, 76.4%) were negative, and many of the children and young people reported experiencing distress across a range of domains related to school, social situations, and mental health. Our findings add to the literature, highlighting the importance of specific considerations for children and young people when responding to national emergencies.

Indexed as

COVID-19Mental HealthAdolescentChildEnglandFemaleHumansMalePandemicsSARS-CoV-2Social SupportYoung AdultAIartificial intelligencechildren and young peopleCOVID-19discourse analysisexperiencesfree-text responsesInfraNoduslong COVIDsentiment analysistext mining

Identifiers

PMID39874576
PMCPMC11815313

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.