MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4296897121 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1002665

How did lockdown and social distancing policies change the eating habits of diabetic patients during the COVID-19 pandemic? A systematic review

2022· review· en· W4296897121 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Narges Lashkarbolouk, Mahdi Mazandarani, Farzad Pourghazi, Maysa Eslami, Nami Mohammadian Khonsari, Zahra Nouri Ghonbalani, Hanieh‐Sadat Ejtahed, Mostafa Qorbani

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial distancePandemicObservational studyGlycemicEnvironmental healthMedicineAnthropometryConsumption (sociology)MEDLINEGerontologyDiabetes mellitusPsychologyDiseaseCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Political scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: After the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments established national lockdowns and social distancing as an effective plan to control this disease. As a result of the lockdown policies, diabetic patients` access to food products, medication, and routine follow-ups is disrupted, making it difficult for them to control their disease. Methods: International databases, including PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus, were searched until April 2022. All observational studies included assessing the impact of lockdown and social distancing on eating habits (as primary outcome), and glycemic and anthropometric indices (as secondary outcomes) of diabetic patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Scale was used to assess the quality rating of the studies. Results: Overall, 22 studies were included in this systematic review, the results of which varied in different communities. In most studies, consumption of grains, fruits, and vegetables was reported to increase. On the other hand, consumption of snacks and sweets was reported to increase in other surveys. During the COVID-19 lockdown, most diabetic patients preferred to cook meals at home, using less takeout, fast foods, and alcoholic drinks. Although the patients mostly improved their eating habits, the glycemic and anthropometric indices were contradictory in different studies. Studies showed that the eating habits of diabetic patients vary from country to country, even in some cases and studies done in the same country showed different results. For example, all the studies done in Japan showed an increase in the consumption of snacks and sweets, leading to weight gain in the patients. However, conflicting results in eating habits have been observed in studies conducted in India. Conclusion: The lockdown policies have led to a beneficial change in the eating habits of diabetic patients to consume more fruits and vegetables and reduce the consumption of animal protein products and alcoholic beverages. While some diabetic patients have increased consumption of snacks and sweets, leading to a disturbance in their glycemic and anthropometric indices control. Understanding the consequences of lockdown and social distancing of the diabetic patient during the COVID-19 pandemic can help public health authorities make better recommendations to improve glycemic control.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.008
Bibliometrics0.0080.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.124
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Psychology→Same topicCOVID-19 and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→