Time use and mental health in UK adults during an 11-week COVID-19 lockdown: a panel analysis
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
There is currently major concern about the impact of the global COVID-19 outbreak on mental health. But it remains unclear how individual behaviours could exacerbate or protect against adverse changes in mental health.
Aims
To examine the associations between specific activities (or time use) and mental health and well-being among people during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Method
Data were from the UCL COVID-19 Social Study, a panel study collecting data weekly during the COVID-19 pandemic. The analytical sample consisted of 55 204 adults living in the UK who were followed up for the 11-week strict lockdown period from 21 March to 31 May 2020. Data were analysed using fixed-effects and Arellano–Bond models.
Results
Changes in time spent on a range of activities were associated with changes in mental health and well-being. After controlling for bidirectionality, behaviours involving outdoor activities such as gardening and exercising predicted subsequent improvements in mental health and well-being, whereas increased time spent following news about COVID-19 predicted declines in mental health and well-being.
Conclusions
These results are relevant to the formulation of guidance for people obliged to spend extended periods in isolation during health emergencies and may help the public to maintain well-being during future lockdowns and pandemics.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.18.20177345: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: The study was approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee (12467/005) and all participants gave informed consent.
Consent: The study was approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee (12467/005) and all participants gave informed consent.Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable 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 …SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.18.20177345: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: The study was approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee (12467/005) and all participants gave informed consent.
Consent: The study was approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee (12467/005) and all participants gave informed consent.Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable 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.
-
