Impact of COVID-19 lockdown on psychosocial factors, health, and lifestyle in Scottish octogenarians: The Lothian Birth Cohort 1936 study

  1. Adele M. Taylor
  2. Danielle Page
  3. Judith A. Okely
  4. Janie Corley
  5. Miles Welstead
  6. Barbora Skarabela
  7. Paul Redmond
  8. Tom C. Russ
  9. Simon R. Cox

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Little is known about effects of COVID-19 lockdown on psychosocial factors, health and lifestyle in older adults, particularly those aged over 80 years, despite the risks posed by COVID-19 to this age group.

Methods

Lothian Birth Cohort 1936 members, residing mostly in Edinburgh and the surrounding Lothians regions in Scotland, mean age 84 years (SD = 0.3), responded to an online questionnaire in May 2020 ( n = 190). We examined responses (experience and knowledge of COVID-19; adherence to guidance; impact on day-to-day living; social contact; self-reported physical and mental health; loneliness; and lifestyle) and relationships between previously-measured characteristics and questionnaire outcomes.

Results

Four respondents experienced COVID-19; most had good COVID-19 knowledge (94.7%) and found guidance easy to understand (86.3%). There were modest declines in self-reported physical and mental health, and 48.2% did less physical activity. In multivariable regression models, adherence to guidance by leaving the house less often associated with less professional occupational class (OR = 0.71, 95%CI 0.51–0.98) and poorer self-rated general health (OR = 0.62, 95%CI 0.42–0.92). Increased internet use associated with female sex (OR = 2.32, 95%CI 1.12–4.86) and higher general cognitive ability (OR = 1.53, 95%CI 1.03–2.33). Loneliness associated with living alone (OR = 0.15, 95%CI 0.07–0.31) and greater anxiety symptoms (OR = 1.76, 95%CI 0.45–1.24). COVID-19 related stress associated with lower emotional stability scores (OR = 0.40, 95%CI 0.24–0.62). Decreased physical activity associated with less professional occupational class (OR = 1.43, 95%CI 1.04–1.96), and lower general cognitive ability (OR = 0.679, 95%CI 0.491–0.931).

Conclusions

Characteristics including cognitive function, occupational class, self-rated health, anxiety, and emotional stability, may be related to risk of poorer lockdown-related psychosocial and physical outcomes.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1371/journal.pone.0253153
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.01.20203711: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: Ethical approval was obtained from Multi-Centre Research Ethics Committee for Scotland (MREC/01/0/56; Wave 1), the Lothian Research Ethics Committee (LREC/2003/2/29; Wave 1), and the Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (07/MRE00/58;
    Consent: Respondents lacking capacity to provide informed consent or unable to complete the questionnaire themselves (n=3) were permitted to have assistance (e.g. from guardian or nearest relative).
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Measures: Statistical analysis: Statistical analyses were conducted using R v3.6.3 (45) and IBM SPSS Statistics v.25 (46).
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    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:
    Strengths and Limitations: This was one of the first studies to collect data on the impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on octogenarians. This adds to and strengthens the current COVID-19 literature, specifically in terms of examining outcomes in older adults. Few studies to date have included large samples of older adults; where older adults have been included, sample sizes tend to be low. Even among larger-scale studies, and those which sampled a wider range of older ages (e.g. extending from age 70 into late 80s), few report equivalent sample sizes to that achieved in the current study, with others ranging between only 22 participants over age 80 (23) to 237 when adults aged 60 years and below are included (19). Additionally, LBC1936 members have a narrow age range, which reduces the likelihood that results are confounded by variation in age. Due to the wealth of previously collected data, the current study also had the rare advantage of being able to link COVID-19 questionnaire outcomes with longitudinal characteristics, thereby avoiding problems inherent in retrospective data collection, such as results being affected by poor recall memory or current circumstances. Furthermore, multivariate models were able to include relevant variables to minimise confounding. The questionnaire was distributed at an expedient time, when lockdown guidance was consistent for all respondents, and respondents completed it around two months after the onset of lockdown, so responses were unlikely...

    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.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.10.01.20203711 on medRxiv