Longitudinal changes in home-based arts engagement during and following the first national lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
This study aimed to examine potential heterogeneity in longitudinal changes in home-based arts engagement during the first national lockdown and following gradual easing of restrictions in the UK. Furthermore, it sought to explore factors that were associated with patterns of longitudinal changes in home-based arts engagement.
Method:
Data were from the UCL COVID-19 Social Study. The analytical sample consisted of 29,147 adults in the UK who were followed up for 22 weeks from 21 March to 21 August 2020. Data were analysed using growth mixture models.
Results:
Our analyses identified five classes of growth trajectories. There were two stable classes showing little change in arts engagement over time (64.4% in total), two classes showing initial increases in arts engagement followed by declines as restrictions were eased (29.8%), and one class showing slight declines during strict lockdown followed by an increase in arts engagement after the easing of restrictions (5.9%). A range of factors were found to be associated with class membership of these arts engagement trajectories, such as age, gender, education, income, employment status, and health.
Conclusion:
There is substantial heterogeneity in longitudinal changes in home-based arts engagement. For participants whose engagement changed over time, growth trajectories of arts engagement were related to changes in lockdown measures. These findings suggest that some individuals may have drawn on the arts when they needed them the most, such as during the strict lockdown period, even if they usually had lower levels of arts engagement before the pandemic. Overall, our results indicate the importance of promoting arts engagement during pandemics and periods of lockdown as part of public health campaigns.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.14.21257233: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable These included gender (women vs men), ethnicity (white vs ethnic minorities), age (18-29, 30-45, 46-59, 60+ years), education (GCSE levels or below, A-levels or equivalent, degree or above), household income (<£30,000 vs >£30,000 per annum), employment status (employed throughout, employed at baseline but lost job during the follow-up, unemployed or economically inactive), living arrangement (living alone, living with others but no children, living with others including children), area of living (city, large town, small town, rural). Randomization The study did not use a random sample design and therefore the original sample is not representative of … SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.14.21257233: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable These included gender (women vs men), ethnicity (white vs ethnic minorities), age (18-29, 30-45, 46-59, 60+ years), education (GCSE levels or below, A-levels or equivalent, degree or above), household income (<£30,000 vs >£30,000 per annum), employment status (employed throughout, employed at baseline but lost job during the follow-up, unemployed or economically inactive), living arrangement (living alone, living with others but no children, living with others including children), area of living (city, large town, small town, rural). Randomization The study did not use a random sample design and therefore the original sample is not representative of the UK population. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.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.
-
