ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
Cohort retention in a pandemic response study: lessons from the SARS-CoV2 Immunity & Reinfection Evaluation (SIREN) study.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. 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.
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSIREN is a healthcare worker cohort study aiming to determine COVID-19 incidence, duration of immunity and vaccine effectiveness across 135 NHS organisations in four UK nations. Conducting an intensive prospective cohort study during a pandemic was challenging. We designed an evolving retention programme, informed by emerging evidence on best practice. This included applying a multifactorial approach, and considering strategies for barrier reduction, community building, follow-up, and tracing. We utilised participant engagement tools underpinned by our Participant Involvement Panel (PIP) and here we evaluate cohort retention over time and identify learnings.
methodsA mixed method evaluation of cohort retention in 12 and 24-month follow-up (June 2020 - March 2023). We described cohort retention by demographics and site, using odds ratios from logistic regression. Withdrawal reasons during this time were collected by survey. We collected participant feedback via cross-sectional online survey conducted October - November 2022, utilising a behavioural science approach. We conducted two focus groups with research teams in February 2023 and conducted thematic analysis exploring cohort retention challenges and facilitators.
results37,275 (84.7%) participants completed 12-months of follow-up. Of 14,772 participants extending their follow-up to 24 months, 12,635 (85.5%) completed this. Retention increased with age in the 12 (55-64 years vs < 25 years OR = 2.50; 95% CI: 2.19-2.85; p < 0.001) and 24-month (> 65 years vs < 25 years OR = 2.92; 95% CI: 1.78-4.88; p < 0.001) cohorts. Retention was highest in the Asian and Black ethnic groups compared to White in the 12 (OR = 1.38; 95% CI: 1.23-1.56; p < 0.001, and OR = 1.64; 95% CI: 1.30-2.08; p < 0.001) and 24-month (OR = 1.78; 95% CI: 1.42-2.25; p < 0.001, and OR = 2.12; 95% CI: 1.41-3.35; p < 0.001) cohort. Among participants withdrawing, the median time in follow-up at withdrawal was 7 months (IQR: 4-10 months) within the 12-month cohort and 19 months within the 24-month cohort (IQR: 16-22 months). The top three reasons for participant withdrawal were workload, leaving site employment and medical reasons. Themes identified from focus-groups included: the need to monitor and understand participant motivation over time, the necessity of inclusive and comprehensive communication, the importance of acknowledging participant contributions, building collaboration with local research teams, and investing in the research team skillset.
conclusionParticipant retention in the SIREN study remained high over 24-months of intensive follow-up, demonstrating that large cohort studies are feasible as a pandemic research tool. Our evaluation suggests it is possible to maintain an engaged cohort of healthcare workers (HCWs) during an acute pandemic response phase. The insights gained from this population group are important, as a highly exposed group fulfilling an essential pandemic response and patient care function. The success of the cohort study overall, as well as the specific population group retained, offer useful insight for pandemic preparedness planning and healthcare worker studies.
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.