Food intake patterns, social determinants and emotions during COVID-19 confinement

  1. Maritza Rios
  2. Jon Subinas
  3. Celestina Delgado
  4. Eliecer Torres
  5. Amador Goodridge
  6. Idalina Cubilla-Batista

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Objective

The COVID-19 pandemic was accompanied by varying movement restriction measures across populations worldwide. These restrictions altered daily activities at all levels, including food access and intake, as well as psychological feelings during lockdown. The main objective of the present study was to evaluate health, and nutrition behaviors during confinement during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Method

We conducted a cross-sectional study using an online survey for data collection; a total of 1,561 surveys were validated.

Results

The majority of respondents were women (74.2%) between 18 and 49 years old. Among the respondents, 83.3% indicated a university education level, and 49.9% reported a monthly family income equal to or less than 1,000 USD. In addition, more than 50% self-reported overweight or obesity. Responses were analyzed using k-means algorithms to identify food intake patterns; we found three patterns: a healthy food intake pattern, a non-healthy food intake pattern and a mixed food intake pattern. The respondents with healthy food intake and non-healthy food intake patterns reported better socioeconomic conditions. Individuals classified as having mixed food intake patterns had lower incomes, less education and higher unemployment rates. Regarding emotions, we found that women experienced more negative emotions, such as fear, worry and anxiety, during the lockdown period.

Conclusions

Taken together, these results suggest that the mobility restriction measures imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic affected food intake patterns by exacerbating existing inequalities. We believe that directing resources towards strategies with the greatest positive impacts on public health remains key, especially in critical situations such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1101/2022.02.11.22270876v3 on medRxiv
  2. Version published to 10.1101/2022.02.11.22270876v2 on medRxiv
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.02.11.22270876: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsField Sample Permit: The sampling frame for online research was non-probabilistic, that is, not all members of the population (N) had the same probability of participating due to the digital gap between those with and without access to communication technology.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    RandomizationRegistered nutritionists randomly selected visiting out-patients and applied the same survey using a mobile phone or PDA (Personal Digital Assistant).
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data processing and analysis were completed using statistical packages SPSS (Social Package for Social Sciences) and STATA (15.1).
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)
    STATA
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    This mixed food intake pattern is of concern because it was reported among 40% of our sample, and the group also showed economic limitations. The social characteristics of participants from patterns 1 and 2 vary from those belonging to the pattern 3 group, and these differences signal potential socioeconomic inequalities. Inequalities may explain non-healthy behaviors and decreased consumption of healthy food. On the other hand, the contrasting behaviors found in patterns 1 and 2 is a clear reminder that having resources does not always translate into positive decisions regarding food intake or health behaviors. Furthermore, other variables, such as self-perception of health status, social networks, and social and gender inequalities should be taken into account when it comes to formulating public health policies to promote healthy behaviors (24; 25; 26). Recent studies have also confirmed the impact of low income and food insecurity on the nutritional behavior of family members (27; 28). This is particularly troubling since Panama has experienced accelerated development during recent decades. Despite this progress in development, the country has not been able to reverse the high inequality rates and remains among the countries with the most unequally distributed wealth in the region (29). This level of inequality persisted and was most likely increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Social and economic factors have an influence on individuals’ decisions regarding food consump...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2022.02.11.22270876v1 on medRxiv