Background
Lockdown has been one of the major worldwide strategies to control the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Its consequences on the well-being of individuals needs to be better understood. The objective of this work was to evaluate the impact of lockdown on the well-being of a general population and the factors associated with this potential impairment of well-being in a population that has been only lightly affected by COVID-19 such as in Reunion island, an overseas French department.
Methods
An online survey was proposed to the population of Reunion Island between the 35
th
and 54
th
days of lockdown relative to pre- and per-lockdown periods. Well-being was measured by the 5-item World Health Organization Well-Being Index, with some questions about sleep habits (Pittsburgh questionnaire), weekly physical activity (IPAQ), health, and lifestyle.
Results
Four hundred volunteers answered the survey. They reported a 15.7% decrease in well-being (p<0.001), accompanied by increased anxiety (p<0.001), decreased weekly physical activity (p<0.001), delayed and poorer quality sleep (p<0.001). Multivariate logistical analysis showed that impairment in well-being during lockdown was independently associated with an increase in anxiety (odds ratio (OR): 4.77 (3.26–6.98), p<0.001), decrease in weekly physical activity (OR: 0.58 (0.43–0.79), p<0.001), and poor-quality sleep (OR: 0.29 (0.19–0.43), p<0.001).
Conclusions
This study suggested an impairment in well-being during lockdown, associated with anxiety, lack of physical activity and sleep disruptions. Public policies must consider these factors as levers for improving the well-being of the population in order to effectively combat the spread of COVID-19.
Physical activity (PA) is an important non-therapeutic tool in primary prevention and treatment of diabetes mellitus (DM). To improve activity-based health management, patients need to quantify activity-related energy expenditure and the other components of total daily energy expenditure. This review explores differences between the components of total energy expenditure in patients with DM and healthy people and presents various tools for assessing the energy expenditure in subjects with DM. From this review, it appears that patients with uncontrolled DM have a higher basal energy expenditure (BEE) than healthy people which must be considered in the establishment of new BEE estimate equations. Moreover, studies showed a lower activity energy expenditure in patients with DM than in healthy ones. This difference may be partially explained by patient with DMs poor compliance with exercise recommendations and their greater participation in lower intensity activities. These specificities of PA need to be taken into account in the development of adapted tools to assess activity energy expenditure and daily energy expenditure in people with DM. Few estimation tools are tested in subjects with DM and this results in a lack of accuracy especially for their particular patterns of activity. Thus, future studies should examine sensors coupling different technologies or method that is specifically designed to accurately assess energy expenditure in patients with diabetes in daily life.
When compared with healthy subjects, T2D patients walk with a higher MR at any given speed. Thus, the slower self-selected speed observed in T2D patients seems to correspond to the speed at which their gross energy cost per distance was minimized and allows T2D patients to walk at the same intensity than healthy subjects.
This study proposed an accurate method for estimating AEE in middle-aged adults for a large range of walking intensities, from slow to brisk walking, based on Bouten's algorithm.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.