ArticleBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2025
[Citizens as public health sentinels: understanding study participation in an adaptive and context-sensitive real-time cohort study during times of crisis].
Article in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2025. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for high-resolution evidence on the social and contextual conditions as well as health outcomes of such emergency events. The PULS (Populationsbasierte Umfrage zur Lebenssituation und Sozialen Gesundheit, i.e., Population-Based Survey on Living Conditions and Social Health) study aims to provide such evidence with an agile and responsive real-time cohort. Here, we examine the determinants of participation in such a study.
methodsA qualitative study using seven semi-structured focus groups (between 16 December 2024 and 14 February 2025), each with 4 to 7 participants (total of 22 men, 17 women, 2 non-binary individuals; diverse backgrounds). Statements were deductively coded along the 14 domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework.
resultsParticipants primarily emphasized the importance of various aspects associated with the domains of Reinforcement, Beliefs about Consequences, Environmental Context and Resources, and Goals, and Beliefs about Capabilities. However, participants did not only mention distinct aspects but also weighed them against each other. For example, participants were more willing to invest resources such as time if the resulting political and social implications of the study aligned with their personal goals, thus demonstrating a subjective contribution to the common good. DISCUSSION: Participation in an agile, responsive, and long-term cohort study is viewed acceptable and feasible under certain conditions. The perceived impact on society and politics as well as the translation of research into policy seem to be key incentives for citizens and can outweigh personally invested resources. These results have implications not only for the implementation of the PULS study but also for the related translation pathways.
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.