Register Dashboard
Search
56
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0
shares
    • Review: found
    Is Open Access

    Review of 'Effect of lockdown on activities of daily living in built environment and well-being'

    Bookmark
    4
    Effect of lockdown on activities of daily living in built environment and well-beingCrossref
    Average rating:
        Rated 4 of 5.
    Level of importance:
        Rated 4 of 5.
    Level of validity:
        Rated 3 of 5.
    Level of completeness:
        Rated 4 of 5.
    Level of comprehensibility:
        Rated 4 of 5.
    Competing interests:
    None

    Reviewed article

    • Record: found
    • Abstract: found
    • Article: found
    Is Open Access

    Effect of lockdown on activities of daily living in built environment and well-being

    In an effort to arrest the spread of COVID-19 infection, a nation-wide lockdown was declared in India in March 2020. To assess how personal built environment affected the citizens in the first few weeks, an explorative online survey was conducted, eliciting responses about the work habits before the lockdown, the psychological well-being, time spent in various activities, characteristics of those who worked from home and sleep patterns. The major difference entailed by thelockdown was a reduction of time and distance to go to their workplace, which was an average of 8.9 km. In terms of diet, subjects who were vegetarian did not experience any difference, unlike those who were non-vegetarians, who reduced the intake of meat. Forced social isolation did not alter the television channels that were viewed. Among those who worked from home, most preferred to work from their bedroom. There was no change in the quality or quantity of sleep during the lockdown. This study in the early weeks of the lockdown documents the way in which individuals lived through it in terms of the built environment at home.
      Bookmark

      Review information

      10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-ARCH.AXYFN5.v1.RCRADM

      This work has been published open access under Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Conditions, terms of use and publishing policy can be found at www.scienceopen.com.

      Keywords:

      Review text

      I would like to thank the Authors for the reviewed article version. Please find in the following some more comments that might help improve the paper quality:

      • “There is as yet no vaccine to prevent it, or drugs to cure the infection.” Please update this sentence according to the current state of vaccine search, development and testing;
      • "93% (Work related) and 07% (Home-based)". What do the Authors mean by "work related"?
      • “Independent variables which have significance of p<0.05 with coefficients that represent positive association with the dependent variables are discussed” Why are the Authors only commenting on positive associations? I think, in general, both positive and negative associations can be of interest. Please comment on this aspect.
      • “Smaller values of R2 may not necessarily be insignificant”. The Authors here refer to the reference [11], where we can read: “To  get  the  full  picture, one must  consider R2 value in  combination  with  residual plots,  other  statistics, and in-depth knowledge of the subject area” [11]. I personally agree with this statement. In this study, however, the Authors do not provide such an in-depth analysis and it should be highlighted that, in case of low R2, results should be taken with caution and their relevance is also to be evaluated based on the "knowledge of the subject area”. For instance, I would be rather skeptical of the relevance of “Feeling in general” regression model based on the watched news channels (R2 = 0,19), but I leave to the Authors the choice of reporting and commenting on such results.
      • The Authors sometimes refer to “Table 3”, but I think it is “Table 2” instead.
      • “Demographic variables are presented in Table 1a and 1b”. I would move here the description of demographic data reported above.
      • Fig. 2 is still not clear to me. The figure caption reports “Food intake during lockdown” and the y-axis description is “comparative scale”. Please provide some more context (in the main text and in the figure caption) on how the data shown were derived and on how the reader can interpret the figure.
      • “There seems to have some influence of “Energy, pep or vitality and Feel healthy to work”. Please detail the type of influence.
      • In the Discussion paragraph, many different topics are addressed, often poorly related one to another. E.g., “Essentially we observed that the major difference entailed by the lockdown was a reduction of time and distance to go to their workplace. In terms of food intake,…”. The points raised should be grounded on the study results and on scientific literature relevant for this study. E.g., “This was necessitated both by the cost as well as an (unfounded) fear of transmission through meat.” How did the Authors derive such conclusion? Is it just an assumption, is it based on data collected or from previous literature? In the latter case, please provide a reference.
      • Conclusions. “In terms of food intake, those who ate only vegetarian food did not experience any change, unlike those who were non-vegetarians, who reduced the intake of meat. This was necessitated both by the cost as well as an (unfounded) fear of transmission through meat.” This sentence has been reported twice.

      Comments

      Comment on this review