ArticlePloS one2025
Participant engagement in a national longitudinal study of COVID-19: Insights from the INSPIRE study.
Article in PloS one, 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
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine participants' motivations and their experiences throughout a decentralized, longitudinal COVID-19 study in the U.S.
methodsWe recruited 355 participants from the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry (INSPIRE) between November 2022 - March 2023 to answer five qualitative survey questions anonymously. We used an inductive content analysis approach to analyze the data.
resultsWe identified five key themes from the analysis, which reflected participants' a) motivations to join the study, b) study benefits, c) perceptions of survey questions, d) experiences with the research process, and e) preferences for disseminating research findings. Participants were motivated to learn with researchers about COVID-19. They expressed divided opinions about the relevance of INSPIRE research questions. They reported difficulties navigating the virtual research platform and the need for making survey participation less cognitively demanding. They sought more regular feedback on study findings.
conclusionsOur findings offered insights into incorporating decentralized participatory methods in longitudinal research, strengthening reciprocal research communications, making virtual research platforms user-friendly, and employing strategies to reduce participants' cognitive burden in research. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Longitudinal studies should focus on optimizing these aspects of participant engagement to produce rigorous findings that inform policy and practice on lasting effects of COVID-19 including Long COVID.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.