The Impact of COVID-19–Related Restrictions on Social and Daily Activities of Parents, People With Disabilities, and Older Adults: Protocol for a Longitudinal, Mixed Methods Study (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND The COVID-19 pandemic has led to wide-scale changes in societal organization. This has dramatically altered people’s daily activities, especially among families with young children, those living with disabilities such as spinal cord injury (SCI), those who have experienced a stroke, and older adults. OBJECTIVE We aim to (1) investigate how COVID-19 restrictions influence daily activities, (2) track the psychosocial effects of these restrictions over time, and (3) identify strategies to mitigate the potential negative effects of these restrictions. METHODS This is a longitudinal, concurrent, mixed methods study being conducted in British Columbia (BC), Canada. Data collection occurred at four time points, between April 2020 and February 2021. The first three data collection time points occurred within phases 1 to 3 of the Province of BC’s Restart Plan. The final data collection coincided with the initial distribution of the COVID-19 vaccines. At each time point, data regarding participants’ sociodemographics, depressive and anxiety symptoms, resilience, boredom, social support, instrumental activities of daily living, and social media and technology use were collected in an online survey. These data supplemented qualitative videoconference interviews exploring participants’ COVID-19–related experiences. Participants were also asked to upload photos representing their experience during the restriction period, which facilitated discussion during the final interview. Five groups of participants were recruited: (1) families with children under the age of 18 years, (2) adults with an SCI, (3) adults who experienced a stroke, (4) adults with other types of disabilities, and (5) older adults (>64 years of age) with no self-reported disability. The number of participants we could recruit from each group was limited, which may impact the validity of some subgroup analyses. RESULTS This study was approved by the University of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board (Approval No. H20-01109) on April 17, 2020. A total of 81 participants were enrolled in this study and data are being analyzed. Data analyses are expected to be completed in fall 2021; submission of multiple papers for publication is expected by winter 2021. CONCLUSIONS Findings from our study will inform the development and recommendations of a new resource guide for the post–COVID-19 period and for future public health emergencies. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/28337
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 | 0.050 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.011 |
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".