Register Dashboard
Search
34
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
    3
    Effect of lockdown on activities of daily living in built environment and well-beingCrossref
    Average rating:
        Rated 3 of 5.
    Level of importance:
        Rated 4 of 5.
    Level of validity:
        Rated 2 of 5.
    Level of completeness:
        Rated 3 of 5.
    Level of comprehensibility:
        Rated 3 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.ATVI5A.v1.RWTHCN

      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

      The analysis of result needs to be still improved, as detailed in the following:

      • Abstract: “The major difference entailed by the lockdown was a reduction of time and distance to go to their workplace, which was an average of 8.9 km.” Is the distance reduction of 8.9 or 9.5 km, as reported below in the main text? What about time reduction?
      • “The online questionnaire was circulated to the contacts of the authors by online social media.” The limitation of a sampling procedure based on a convenience criterion should be highlighted in the Limitation section.
      • “Of the 121 responses received, there is considerable demographic representation of age, gender, food habits, profession…” The Authors then refer to the “small sample of subjects” as a study limitation. The Authors should specify whether the 121 responses can be representative and in case of what geographical area and target population, and according to which criteria.
      • “Independent variables which have significance of p<0.05 with coefficients that have positive association with the dependent variables are discussed.” Are the Authors disregarding independent variables with negative associations with the dependent variables? From Table 3, it does not seem the case. Please clarify.
      • “While R2 of greater than 50% is considered significant, in sociological and psychological studies low R2 do have relevance (10) specifically considering the unprecedented situation that humankind encounters and volatile experience of the respondent to comprehend.” This explanation is not clear to me and the link to the reference is not active. Please provide a clearer explanation about the relevance of independent variables explaining only a small percentage of the variance in the dependent variables and please include references to scientific publications you are considering on this topic.
      • The Authors investigated the impacts of the Covid situation on several different daily activities and aspects. The Authors state that: “The variables considered throw light on aspects that could be taken into account to find ways to live with situations like covid-19 pandemic.” Please discuss how the information derived from the questionnaire (e.g. information about food intake and watched TV channels) are useful and can inform about strategies to adopt in pandemic situations.
      • Table 2 is not clear. Why are items different between vegetarian and non-vegetarian? In addition, some items are of difficult interpretation (e.g. “never had”: does it refer to specific food types, or in general to “food intake during lockdown”, as reported in the table heading? Please clarify).
      • “Ttest for vegetarian and non-vegetarian groups show significant differences (t<0.05) for food intake during lockdown.” Please describe those differences, if relevant.
      • Fig. 2 is also not clear. The table is about the food intake during the lockdown, but the reader has no information about the meaning of the 0-2.5 scale on the vertical axis.
      • “ There does not seem to have any influence of “Generally tensed” and “Worried about health” parameters indicating that the subjects feel safe during lockdown and experience the same confidence as before lockdown in absence of the epidemic” Why the Authors can draw such conclusions? Please specify.
      • “There is significant positive relation with 95% confidence interval and R2=0.18 to “Feeling in General” for the news channels of “News updates on COVID-19 cases” with (p<0.05) and “General news updates” with (p<0.01) (Table-3). There is significant relation to “Happy and satisfied personal life” with (p<0.01) at 95% confidence interval and R2=0.14 for channels related to “spirituality”.” Are data suggesting that e.g. people watching news on Covid generally felt better? Please describe the relationships expressed by regression coefficients, whether they are relevant and meaningful.
      • “the average distances of 9.5 KM travelled by the remaining 99 office/institute going respondents have actually saved time and energy that could be contributed to WfH.” Is 9.5 km a distance reduction? Please specify.
      • Fig. 3. It is not clear what “yes/no” refers to.
      • “We assessed the response of the participants on WfH and found that people whose homes are of group housing/apartment type have no significant relation.” Please clarify the investigated relation (relation with?).
      • Sleep patterns: the observed results are limited by the fact that R2 values are very small and regression coefficients are close to zero. Authors should comment on these aspects.
      • Discussions: discussions must carefully follow the analysis of results, with reference to the observed effect size and variability explained on the dependent variables by the independent ones.
      • Conclusions: please clearly refer and answer to the three research questions stated in the Introduction (e.g. through a bullet point or three distinct paragraphs).

      Comments

      I agree with the comments.

      2020-10-23 23:41 UTC
      +1

      Agree with comments.

      2020-09-22 10:55 UTC
      +1
      One person recommends this

      Comment on this review