Effects of COVID-19 home confinement on physical activity and eating behaviour Preliminary results of the ECLB-COVID19 international online-survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Public health recommendations and governmental measures during the COVID-19 pandemic have enforced numerous restrictions on daily living including social distancing, isolation and home confinement. While these measures are imperative to abate the spreading of COVID-19, the impact of these restrictions on health behaviours and lifestyle at home is undefined. Therefore, an international online survey was launched in April 2020 in seven languages to elucidate the behavioral and lifestyle consequences of COVID-19 restrictions. This report presents the preliminary results from the first thousand responders on physical activity (PA) and nutrition behaviours. Methods Thirty-five research organisations from Europe, North-Africa, Western Asia and the Americas promoted the survey through their networks to the general society, in English, German, French, Arabic, Spanish, Portugese, and Slovenian languages. Questions were presented in a differential format with questions related to responses “before” and “during” confinement conditions. Results 1047 replies (54% women) from Asia (36%), Africa (40%), Europe (21%) and other (3%) were included into a general analysis. The COVID-19 home confinement had a negative effect on all intensities of PA (vigorous, moderate, walking and overall). Conversely, daily sitting time increased from 5 to 8 hours per day. Additionally, food consumption and meal patterns (the type of food, eating out of control, snacks between meals, number of meals) were more unhealthy during confinement with only alcohol binge drink decreasing significantly. Conclusion While isolation is a necessary measure to protect public health, our results indicate that it alters physical activity and eating behaviours in a direction that would compromise health. A more detailed analysis of survey data will allow for a segregation of these responses in different age groups, countries and other subgroups which will help develop bespoke interventions to mitigate the negative lifestyle behaviors manifest during the COVID-19 confinement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".