Physical Activity Levels and Mental Health during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Preliminary Results of a Comparative Study between Convenience Samples from Brazil and Switzerland

Abstract

Background and objectives: It has been suggested that the COVID-19 pandemic impaired people’s moods and general levels of physical activity, but the way in which each country is coping with the situation may result in different outcomes. The aim of the present study was to compare the mental health and physical activity levels between residents of Brazil and Switzerland during the social distancing period associated with COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and Methods: A self-administered questionnaire aiming to assess personal, quarantine, physical activity, and mood state disorders data was answered by 114 participants (57 from each country) of both sexes. Results: Swiss participants presented a higher frequency of people (47.4%) not abiding by social distancing measures compared to Brazilian participants (1.8%; p < 0.001, effect size = 0.56). There were no significant differences between the participants from the two countries regarding physical activity levels (p = 0.09). The Swiss presented a higher frequency (78.9%) of people without symptoms of depression compared to Brazilians (31.6%; p < 0.001, effect size = 0.48). The Swiss also presented a higher frequency (77.2%) of people without symptoms of anxiety compared to Brazilians (35.1%; p < 0.001, effect size = 0.43). There was a significant association between the restriction level and depression symptoms (p = 0.01, effect size = 0.25) but not with anxiety symptoms (p = 0.21, effect size = 0.16). Conclusions: According to the preliminary results, Brazilians presented a much higher frequency of depression and anxiety symptoms, which can be explained by characteristics other than the restriction level.

Postpartum depressive symptoms of Brazilian women during the COVID-19 pandemic measured by the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale

“…Many of the study participants did not isolate themselves as completely as required by the official restrictive guidelines, likely for financial reasons since most of their partners (62%) had to go out to work at some time during the pandemic. Notwithstanding the recent data revealing that Brazilians were more efficient at social distancing than the Swiss ( Puccinelli et al, 2021 ), with most Brazilians (58%) leaving their homes only for essential activities, in our clinic most of the study patients (63%) went out of their homes at least once for reasons deemed inappropriate by the social isolation standards. For example: they went shopping at the mall, they went to parties, and they visited friends and relatives.…”

“…In the aforementioned study ( Puccinelli et al, 2021 ), a significant association was found between depression and isolation level. However, the authors themselves raised the hypothesis that the socioeconomic factors entailed by the isolation in a country with high unemployment rates and low per capita income may be more relevant than the isolation level itself.…”

Prevalence and Risk Factors of Psychiatric Symptoms among Swiss Elite Athletes during the First Lockdown of the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…In a South African sample of elite and semi-elite athletes, almost half of them reported feeling depressed during the lockdown in spring 2020 [28]. Another study found exactly the same rate (7%) of people with at least moderate depression as we did in the Swiss general population during the COVID-19 pandemic [42]. However, the number of participants from Switzerland was only 57.…”

Meta-analytical evidence on mental disorder symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic in Latin America

“…A total of 36 unique samples from 33 studies (Badellino et al, 2020;Campos et al, 2020;Cénat et al, 2021;Chen et al, 2020a;Chen et al, 2020b;Civantos et al, 2020;Cortés-Álvarez et al, 2020;Dal'Bosco et al, 2020;De Boni et al, 2020;Fernández et al, 2020;Feter et al, 2021;Giardino et al, 2020;Goularte et al, 2021;Guiroy et al, 2020;Loret de Mola et al, in press;Malgor et al, 2020;Martinez et al, 2020;Medeiros et al, 2020;Monterrosa-Castro et al, 2020;Mora-Magaña et al, 2020;Paz et al, 2020;Puccinelli et al, 2021;Robles et al, 2020;Samaniego et al, 2020;Schuch et al, 2020;Scotta et al, 2021;Serafim et al, 2021;Torrente et al, 2021;Werneck et al, 2021;Jaime A. Yáñez et al, 2020; Jaime Stephen X Zhang et al, 2021;Stephen Xu Zhang et al, 2021) involving 101,772 participants from Latin America were included in this meta-analysis (Table 1). Some studies include multiple independent samples.…”

“…In the random-effects model, the pooled prevalence of anxiety was 32% (95% CI: 27%-38%, I 2 = 99.8%) in the 29 studies (Figure 2A). A total of 27 samples from 24 studies (Badellino et al, 2020;Campos et al, 2020;Civantos et al, 2020;Cortés-Álvarez et al, 2020;Dal'Bosco et al, 2020;De Boni et al, 2020;Fernández et al, 2020;Feter et al, 2021;Giardino et al, 2020;Goularte et al, 2021;Guiroy et al, 2020;Loret de Mola et al, in press;Martinez et al, 2020;Medeiros et al, 2020;Mora-Magaña et al, 2020;Paz et al, 2020;Puccinelli et al, 2021;Robles et al, 2020;Samaniego et al, 2020;Schuch et al, 2020;Serafim et al, 2021;Torrente et al, 2021; Stephen X Zhang et al, in press) reported the prevalence of depression among 53,622 respondents. Among all the depression survey tools, the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 was the most frequently used (45.83%), followed by HADS (16.67%), DASS-21 (12.5%), and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) (4.17%).…”