Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40597319›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025

Integration of former child and adolescent study participants into a national health online panel for a longitudinal study on young adult mental health.

Michael Lange, Vera Birgel, Stefan Damerow, Johannes Lemcke, Jennifer Allen, Hans Butschalowsky, Susanna Christen, Caroline Cohrdes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

Michael LangeDepartment 2 Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, Gerichtstraße 27, Berlin, 13347, Germany. langem@rki.de.
Vera BirgelDepartment 2 Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, Gerichtstraße 27, Berlin, 13347, Germany.
Stefan DamerowDepartment 2 Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, Gerichtstraße 27, Berlin, 13347, Germany.
Johannes LemckeDepartment 2 Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, Gerichtstraße 27, Berlin, 13347, Germany.
Jennifer AllenDepartment 2 Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, Gerichtstraße 27, Berlin, 13347, Germany.
Hans ButschalowskyDepartment 2 Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, Gerichtstraße 27, Berlin, 13347, Germany.
Susanna ChristenDepartment 2 Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, Gerichtstraße 27, Berlin, 13347, Germany.
Caroline CohrdesDepartment 2 Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, Gerichtstraße 27, Berlin, 13347, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLongitudinal studies are essential for understanding health trajectories and determinants over time. Successfully re-engaging and monitoring participants at key stages such as the transition from adolescence to adulthood is crucial. This stage of life is characterized by many changes and challenges and is considered critical for the manifestation of mental health problems. This study addresses challenges of contacting, re-activation and comparability of individuals in transition to adulthood with the initial population-based sample last contacted up to 9 years ago.

methodsIn 2024, former participants of the "German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents" (KiGGS) aged 16-25 years were invited to register in the new online panel infrastructure "Health in Germany" and participate in the "Study on Mental Health in Emerging Adulthood" (JEPSY) via a push-to-online panel approach. Logistic regression models identified predictors of registration and study participation. Weighting adjustments were applied to analyse and correct for selective participation. To assess potential selection bias, life satisfaction of JEPSY participants was benchmarked against a representative sample.

resultsAmong 11,737 invitees, 4,451 (37.9%) registered, and among these, 3,063 (68.8%) completed the JEPSY survey. For participants aged 11 + years, higher probabilities for registration and participation were evident for females (OR = 2.61 [95% CI: 2.37-2.88]); OR = 2.85, [2.56-3.18]), individuals with higher occupational (OR = 1.08, [1.04-1.13]; OR = 1.06, [1.01-1.11]) or educational status (OR = 1.13, [1.08-1.17]; OR = 1.13, [1.08-1.17]). Individuals with higher emotional problems were less likely to register (OR = 0.98, [0.97-0.99]) and participate (OR = 0.98, [0.97-0.99]). Weighting adjustments reduced biases but increased statistical variance. Benchmarking life satisfaction revealed no significant differences between JEPSY participants and their representative counterparts.

conclusionsThis study demonstrated the feasibility of re-activating former participants and integrating them into a modern online panel. While re-activation was successful for a substantial proportion of invitees, specific challenges (e.g., selective re-participation) remain. The findings provide insights for refining re-contact and retention strategies to improve representativeness and quality of longitudinal mental health research, ultimately enabling more accurate monitoring of health trajectories and their determinants over time.

Indexed as

Health SurveysMental HealthAdolescentAdultChildFemaleGermanyHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMental DisordersYoung AdultEmerging adulthoodJEPSYKiGGSLongitudinal studyLoss to follow-upMental healthPanel infrastructureRe-contactSample weightsTransition

Identifiers

PMID40597319
PMCPMC12211355

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.