ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Co-creating a social science research agenda for Long Covid.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Our objective was to understand how social scientific research could best address the needs and concerns of patients, families, carers, healthcare professionals, academics, private and public sector professionals, and volunteers from Long Covid charities and support groups and people with lived experience of Long Covid. We worked with different stakeholders to develop a list of research priorities that particularly focused on social science as this is where our collective expertise lies, but similar methods could also be used to set research priorities in the natural sciences, medicine or the humanities. Methods: We used purposive sampling and conducted two online surveys. The first online survey ( Results: Nine research questions were developed concerning (i) treatments, therapies, and strategies; (ii) financial support; (iii) repeated reinfections; (iv) training of healthcare professionals; (v) mental health impact; (vi) future of research funding; (vii) airborne transmissions of COVID-19; (viii) developing therapeutics informed by patients' experiences; and (ix) socioeconomic impacts of Long Covid. Many of the issues raised mirror those discussed in previous work in the UK and internationally, but additional novel themes emerged, underscoring the value of this collaborative approach. Conclusion: Our survey revealed the value of including the voices of diverse individuals affected by Long Covid and those working in this area and highlighted priorities for social science in the field of Long Covid research.
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.