This study examined the impact of social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic on loneliness, wellbeing, and social activity, including social support, in Scottish older adults. A mixed methods online survey was used to examine these factors during social distancing mid-lockdown, July 2020. Participants were asked to state whether loneliness, wellbeing, social activity, and social support had changed since pre-social distancing, and to provide details of strategies used to keep socially active. A total of 1429 adults (84% aged 60+ years) living in Scotland took part. The majority reported that social distancing regulations made them experience more loneliness and less social contact and support. Loneliness during lockdown was higher than reported norms for this age group before the pandemic. A larger social network, more social contact, and better perceived social support seemed to be protective against loneliness and poor wellbeing. Positive coping strategies reported included increasing online social contact with both existing social networks and reconnecting with previous networks, as well as increasing contact with neighbours and people in the community. This underlines the importance of addressing loneliness and social support in older adults but particularly during situations where risk of isolation is high.

Physical activity (PA), sedentary behaviour (SB) and sleep are important lifestyle behaviours associated with chronic respiratory disease (CRD) morbidity and mortality. These behaviours need to be understood in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) to develop appropriate interventions. Purpose Where and how have free-living PA, SB and sleep data been collected for adults living with CRD in LMIC? What are the free-living PA, SB and sleep levels of adults living with CRD? Patients and Methods The literature on free-living PA, SB and sleep of people living with CRD in LMIC was systematically reviewed in five relevant scientific databases. The review included empirical studies conducted in LMIC, reported in any language. Reviewers screened the articles and extracted data on prevalence, levels and measurement approach of PA, SB and sleep using a standardised form. Quality of reporting was assessed using bespoke criteria. Results Of 89 articles, most were conducted in Brazil (n=43). PA was the commonest behaviour measured (n=66). Questionnaires (n=52) were more commonly used to measure physical behaviours than device-based (n=37) methods. International Physical Activity Questionnaire was the commonest for measuring PA/SB (n=11). For sleep, most studies used Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (n=18). The most common ways of reporting were steps per day (n=21), energy expenditure (n=21), sedentary time (n=16), standing time (n=13), sitting time (n=11), lying time (n=10) and overall sleep quality (n=32). Studies revealed low PA levels [steps per day (range 2669–7490steps/day)], sedentary lifestyles [sitting time (range 283–418min/day); standing time (range 139–270min/day); lying time (range 76–119min/day)] and poor sleep quality (range 33–100%) among adults with CRD in LMIC. Conclusion Data support low PA levels, sedentary lifestyles and poor sleep among people in LMIC living with CRDs. More studies are needed in more diverse populations and would benefit from a harmonised approach to data collection for international comparisons.

Albert Einstein taught us that “everything is relative.” People’s experience of physical activity (PA) is no different, with “relativism” particularly pertinent to the perception of intensity. Markers of absolute and relative intensities of PA have different but complimentary utilities, with absolute intensity considered best for PA guideline adherence and relative intensity for personalized exercise prescription. Under the paradigm of exercise and PA as medicine, our Technical Note proposes a method of synchronizing accelerometry with the incremental shuttle walking test to facilitate description of the intensity of the free-living PA profile in absolute and relative terms. Our approach is able to generate and distinguish “can do” or “cannot do” (based on exercise capacity) and “does do” or “does not do” (based on relative intensity PA) classifications in a chronic respiratory disease population, facilitating the selection of potential appropriate individually tailored interventions. By synchronizing direct assessments of exercise capacity and PA, clearer insights into the intensity of PA performed during everyday life can be gleaned. We believe the next steps are as follows: (1) to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of using relative and absolute intensities in combination to personalize the approach, (2) to determine its sensitivity to change following interventions (eg, exercise-based rehabilitation), and (3) to explore the use of this approach in healthier populations and in other long-term conditions.