Impacts of social restrictions on mental health and health behaviours of individuals with multimorbidity during Covid-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundSocial restrictions and their possible impact on lifestyle make people with multimorbidity (≥2 co-existing chronic conditions) more vulnerable to poor perceived mental health and health behaviours modifications during the COVID-19 pandemic.ObjectiveTo understand the mental health status and health behaviour modifications among individuals with multimorbidity during different levels of COVID-19 social restrictions.MethodsLongitudinal multinational cohort study consisting of two online questionnaires with its first wave taken place while social restrictions were imposed (May 2020), and its second wave with less social restrictions in place (November 2020). Including 559 participants (wave 1) and 147 participants from wave 1 (wave 2) with an average age of 34.30±12.35 and 36.21±13.07 years old. Mostly females living in Canada, France, India and Lebanon.ResultsThe prevalence of multimorbidity was 27.68% (wave 1) and 35.37% (wave 2). While social restrictions were imposed, people with multimorbidity were 2 to 3 times more likely to experience psychological distress, depressive symptoms, increased stress or isolation than those without multimorbidity. Health behaviours were also modified during this period with people with multimorbidity being more likely to reduce their physical activity and increased their fruit and vegetable consumption. In wave 2, regardless of multimorbidity status, sexual desire continuously decreased while stress and psychological distress increased.ConclusionMental health and health behaviours modifications occurred while social restrictions were imposed and people with multimorbidity were more severely impacted than those without multimorbidity, indicating a need for a more adapted approach of care during socially restrictive periods for this population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".