Gender differences in bodyweight change following COVID-19 lockdown measures in the Netherlands: a prospective longitudinal study

Abstract

BackgroundThe current study aimed to prospectively assess bodyweight change following the implementation of lockdown measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands and to explore the potentially moderating role of gender in this association.DesignUsing Dutch DNB Household Survey panel data collected between 1993 and 2020, we estimated fixed-effects regression models of bodyweight change. Models were stratified by gender and formal tests of gender differences in coefficient estimates were performed.Participants4365 women and 4583 men aged 18–65 were included in the study. The total number of observations was 41 330.Outcome measuresThe outcome of interest was self-reported bodyweight in kilograms. Additional analyses were performed using body mass index (self-reported weight in kilograms divided by self-reported height in metres squared) as the outcome.ResultsThe implementation of Dutch lockdown measures in 2020 was associated with bodyweight gain of approximately 800 g in working-age women compared with the 3 prior years. Bodyweight gain in 2020 relative to the prior years was significantly stronger for women than for men (F(4, 8947)=3.9, p<0.01). No evidence of bodyweight gain in working-age men was found.ConclusionResults indicate that bodyweight gain following COVID-19 lockdown measures in the Netherlands was more pronounced among women than among men. Although necessary to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, lockdown measures may contribute to a different public health challenge in the rising prevalence of overweight and obesity.

The contribution of parity to ethnic differences in mothers' body mass index in the Netherlands: A Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition approach

“…We flagged reported bodyweights lower than 25 kg or greater than 250 kg, reported heights lower than 100 cm or greater than 240 cm, or BMI scores lower than 14 kg/m 2 or greater than 55 kg/m 2 as implausible (cf. Flegal et al, 2019 , van den Broek and Fleischmann, 2022 ), and excluded respondents with such scores.…”