Abstract
ABSTRACTObjectivesThe C19PRC study aims to assess the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic in the adult population of the UK, Republic of Ireland, and Spain. This paper describes the conduct of the first two waves of the UK survey (the “parent” strand of the Consortium) during March–April 2020.MethodsA longitudinal, internet panel survey was designed to assess: (1) COVID‐19 related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors; (2) the occurrence of common mental health disorders as well as the role of (3) psychological factors and (4) social and political attitudes, in influencing the public's response to the pandemic. Quota sampling (age, sex, and household income) was used to recruit a nationally representative sample of adults.ResultsTwo thousand and twenty five adults were recruited at baseline, and 1406 were followed‐up one‐month later (69.4% retention rate). The baseline sample was representative of the UK population in relation to economic activity, ethnicity, and household composition. Attrition was predicted by key socio‐demographic characteristics, and an inverse probability weighting procedure was employed to ensure the follow‐up sample was representative of the baseline sample.ConclusionThe C19PRC study data has strong generalizability to facilitate and stimulate interdisciplinary research on important public health questions relating to the COVID‐19 pandemic.
Highlights
Without an effective therapeutic or vaccine aided prophylaxis for the SARS CoV‐2 virus, governments around the world have imposed stringent social distancing measures to slow contagion, protect the most vulnerable, and better manage health care service demand/provision (World Health Organisation, 2020a, 2020b)
Despite the urgency for scientific evidence to help inform the global response to the rapidly evolving COVID‐19 pandemic, it has been emphasized recently that more than ever, research studies must be of high quality (Nieto, Navas, & Vázquez, 2020) and that this can only be achieved through the use of focused questions, the employment of robust methodologies and the securement of necessary ethical approval(s) from relevant institutions (Hipp, Bünning, Munnes, & Sauermann, 2020; Townsend, Nielsen, Allister, & Cassidy, 2020; World Health Organisation, 2020c)
As is common with all studies, the COVID‐19 Psychological research consortium (C19PRC) study is not without limitations and chief among these is the use of quota sampling to recruit the non‐probability based sample via the internet
Summary
Without an effective therapeutic or vaccine aided prophylaxis for the SARS CoV‐2 virus (hereafter, COVID‐19), governments around the world have imposed stringent social distancing measures to slow contagion, protect the most vulnerable, and better manage health care service demand/provision (World Health Organisation, 2020a, 2020b). Armed by the research evidence underpinning the C19PRC's two core principles, five objectives were set for the Consortium's research methods framework: (1) to recruit a large, nationally representative panel of adults in each country, that will serve as a study “spine” in that country, and that will facilitate various opportunities for conducting bespoke studies targeting specific sub‐groups in the population (e.g. frontline workers) who are at risk for COVID‐19; (2) to collect detailed “baseline” survey data on a broad range of outcomes and behaviors, such as mental health disorders (e.g., anxiety, depression) and health‐related behaviors (e.g., maintaining hygiene practices, face‐mask wearing), known to be impacted by, and influence recovery from, a global pandemic; (3) to assess a broad array of protective and risk factors known to (or thought to) influence identified health‐related outcomes and behaviors, both at the micro‐level (i.e., via respondent self‐report) and macro‐level (i.e., via linkage of respondent geospatial data to external data resources e.g. population density; availability of green spaces; area‐level rates of COVID‐19 infection, etc.); (4) to re‐contact respondents regularly as the pandemic unfolds, with measurements at each assessment being guided by both the extant literature on previous pandemics, and adapting and responding to, the unfolding social, political, and economic circumstances in each country; and (5) to produce rapid, high‐quality, country‐specific research outputs in the first instance, for the purpose of contributing to the emerging evidence base pertaining to the pandemic at a national level, and to prioritize multi‐country research outputs to highlight, more broadly, whether and how between‐country differences might uniquely explain variation in COVID‐19 outcomes. Forthcoming methodological papers will detail our international Consortium's progress throughout 2020‐21, including the conduct of baseline surveys in other countries (e.g. Italy) and follow‐up waves in the UK, Republic of Ireland and Spain, as well as studies of a qualitative and experimental design linked to the UK parent strand
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
