Blog
About

130
views
1
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 3.5 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 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

     Sudhir Kumar Pasala,  Lakshmi Gumpeny (corresponding) ,  Madhu Kosuri (2020)
    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.AGRRA6.v1.RGIDJW

      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 study provides insights into how the lockdown affected several aspects of daily life in India. Despite the limitations stressed by the authors (limited sample size and sampling modality), I find the study interesting, as it contributes to the ongoing research on the effect of the COVID-19 outbreak and built environment on the health and well-being of building occupants. In the following, some suggestions are provided to improve the paper quality:

      • Research questions (RQs) should be better defined in the Introduction. As the study investigated many different aspects, those should be better linked together in order to avoid confusion. I suggest adding a Conclusions section where answers to RQs are clearly reported;
      • My main concern regards the statistical analyses. The term “significant” is used in the text as regards the food intake comparison shown in Figure 2, but it is not clear whether a statistical test has been done (e.g. t-test) and, in case, the level of significance.
      • For all the statistical tests, the Authors should specify whether assumptions are met.
      • An incongruence is present for “feeling in general” R2 values between the text and the table T3 (0.51 and 0.60 seem to be inverted).
      • Regression results should be further discussed with reference to the direction of associations suggested by the regression coefficients. Moreover, in case of low R2 values, Authors should stress the limited relevance of results as only a small percentage of the variance in the dependent variable is actually explained by the independent variables.
      • Results should not be introduced for the first time in the Discussion section (e.g. reduction of distance to the workplace).
      • The Authors report: “Essentially we observed that 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.” How is the average calculated? If the average is made between people that kept working at their usual working place and people that started working from home, I am wondering whether the average provides meaningful information.
      • I suggest adding a Limitation section dedicated to the limitations already stressed by the Authors.

      Comments

      wrote:

      Author: Simone Torresin

      Review text

      The study provides insights into how the lockdown affected several aspects of daily life in India. Despite the limitations stressed by the authors (limited sample size and sampling modality), I find the study interesting, as it contributes to the ongoing research on the effect of the COVID-19 outbreak and built environment on the health and well-being of building occupants. In the following, some suggestions are provided to improve the paper quality:

      · Research questions (RQs) should be better defined in the Introduction. As the study investigated many different aspects, those should be better linked together in order to avoid confusion. I suggest adding a Conclusions section where answers to RQs are clearly reported;

      Following statements is included in continuation to Aim that is included in “Introduction” section as suggested by the 1stReviewer.

      “Is there a perceptual change in wellbeing during lockdown to that of before lockdown? As a health concern, are there any changes in food habits and rest/sleep? How do people accomplish their responsibilities of work/study?”

      Conclusion is added as follows,

      “The unprecedented lockdown due to COVID-19 pandemic has greatly impacted the behaviours of family staying at home and accomplishing all their usual activities in an environment for which it was not originally designed. The “stay home stay safe” strategy contributed for wellbeingfactors of general health, happiness and vitality while keeping away the worry of health and feeling of tensed. However, there seems to have an (unfounded) fear of transmission impacting their food habits and with ample time to rest there is no improved sleep compared to prior lockdown or during normal days. While there are difficulties in performing the activities of daily living mainly of work and leisure related in constrained environments, people could find spaces and seem to adapt with reasonable modifications to built environment. WfH could also benefit with reduced effort in travel distance and time by whatever mode of transport they opt. Forced social isolation did not alter the TV channels watched at home and family members seemingly found new ways and means of entertainment.

      Some of the potential ways covid-19 will impact built environment consist of a shift away from large city offices, mode of transport and development of new forms of public spaces. More broad based concerns about the construction of smart cities can deal with future pandemics with popularization of health science and improving emergency health systems keeping in place multi-industry coordination mechanisms, to deal with pandemics. Besides healthy workplaces, telecommuting and online accessibility of various services including telemedicine, distance learning, online shopping and online entertainment are bound to evolve.”

      · My main concern regards the statistical analyses. The term “significant” is used in the text as regards the food intake comparison shown in Figure 2, but it is not clear whether a statistical test has been done (e.g. t-test) and, in case, the level of significance.

      Yes, Ttest was conducted as shown in Table below. However, we presented only the differences in veg. and non-veg. food intake during lockdown. Now, we made the following modification in the statement,

      “Ttest for vegetarian and non-vegetarian groups show significant differences (t<0.05) for food intake during lockdown.Further, the standard error of mean for the two groups of vegetarian and non-vegetarian food intake during lockdown show reduction in intake of non-vegetarian items (Figure-2).”

       

       

       

      During Lockdown

       

       

       

      Veg.

      Non-veg.

       

       

       

      2.0

      1.5

       

       

       

      1.0

      0.8

       

       

       

      1.4

      2.0

       

       

       

      1.0

      0.5

       

       

       

      1.8

      0.2

       

       

       

      3.0

      0.3

       

       

       

      1.0

      2.0

       

       

       

      1.0

      0.8

       

       

       

      2.6

      1.8

       

       

       

      1.4

      0.7

       

       

       

      1.0

      1.5

       

       

       

      3.4

      0.5

       

       

       

      1.4

      1.7

       

       

       

      2.6

      2.5

       

       

       

      1.8

      0.2

       

       

       

      1.0

      2.0

       

       

       

      1.2

      1.8

       

       

       

      2.8

      0.3

       

       

       

      2.2

      0.0

       

       

       

      1.0

      0.3

       

       

       

      2.2

      0.3

       

       

       

      1.0

      0.0

       

       

       

      2.0

      1.0

       

       

       

      1.4

      1.7

       

       

       

      1.0

      2.5

       

       

       

      2.0

      1.0

       

       

       

      3.0

      1.0

       

       

       

      1.0

      0.0

       

       

       

      1.4

      1.7

       

       

       

      1.0

      2.0

       

       

       

      1.0

      1.5

       

       

       

      2.6

      1.5

       

       

       

      1.0

      0.3

       

       

       

      0.0

      2.2

       

       

       

       

      1.8

       

       

       

      1.2

       

       

       

      1.8

       

       

       

      1.2

       

       

       

      1.0

       

       

       

      1.7

       

       

       

      1.0

       

       

       

      2.2

       

       

       

      2.2

       

       

       

      0.3

       

       

       

      0.7

       

       

       

      1.8

       

       

       

      1.2

       

       

       

      1.0

       

       

       

      1.2

       

       

       

      2.3

       

       

       

      2.0

       

       

       

      1.5

       

       

       

      0.3

       

       

       

      1.2

       

       

       

      0.5

       

       

       

      0.5

       

       

       

      2.0

       

       

       

      1.0

       

       

       

      1.7

       

       

       

      0.7

       

       

       

      1.3

       

       

       

      1.2

       

       

       

      1.2

       

       

       

      1.2

       

       

       

      1.0

       

       

       

      0.3

       

       

       

      1.2

       

       

       

      2.2

       

       

       

      0.7

       

       

       

      0.7

       

       

       

      0.8

       

       

       

      2.2

       

       

       

      0.8

       

       

       

      0.8

       

       

       

      1.2

       

       

       

      0.5

       

       

       

      1.2

       

       

       

      0.8

       

       

       

      0.8

       

       

       

      2.0

       

       

       

      2.2

       

       

       

      0.5

       

       

       

      0.3

       

       

       

      0.5

       

       

       

      0.7

       

       

       

      2.2

       

       

       

      2.2

       

       

       

      1.0

      Ttest (2 tailed, type 3)

      0.001504

       

       

      During Lockdown

       

      Veg.

      Non-veg.

       

      Mean

      1.7

      1.2

       

      STDEV

      0.745

      0.676

       

      STDERR

      0.130

      0.072

       

      95% CI

      0.259

      0.144

       

                   

      · For all the statistical tests, the Authors should specify whether assumptions are met.

      Tests for Independence, Linearity and Homoscedasticity are satisfied for regression analysis during lockdown for dependent variable of “feeling in General” to the predictor variables of “Energy, pep or vitality” and “Feel healthy to work”. Similarly tests of Independence & linearity are met for all predictor and dependent variables for statistical analysis of Watching television-TV, Mode of transport, Built environment and Work from Home.

       

      · An incongruence is present for “feeling in general” R2 values between the text and the table T3 (0.51 and 0.60 seem to be inverted).

      The incongruence has been corrected.

      · Regression results should be further discussed with reference to the direction of associations suggested by the regression coefficients. Moreover, in case of low R2 values, Authors should stress the limited relevance of results as only a small percentage of the variance in the dependent variable is actually explained by the independent variables.

      The comment has been addressed and the following text is added in “Statistical Analysis” section.

      “Independent variables which have significance of p<0.05 with coefficients that have positive association with the dependent variables are discussed. 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. The variables considered throw light on aspects that could be taken into account to find ways to live with situations like covid-19 pandemic.”

      · Results should not be introduced for the first time in the Discussion section (e.g. reduction of distance to the workplace).

      This is included in “Built environment and Work from Home” section as follows,

      “With 22 home-based (10 home makers/retired persons, 22 office/business persons at home) 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.”

      · The Authors report: “Essentially we observed that 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.” How is the average calculated? If the average is made between people that kept working at their usual working place and people that started working from home, I am wondering whether the average provides meaningful information.

      Yes, so we now exclude home-based participants and made the following correction/inclusion.

      “With 22 home-based (10 home makers/retired persons, 21 office/business persons at home and 1 student) the average distances travelled by the remaining 99 office/institute going respondents is 9.5 KM.”

      · I suggest adding a Limitation section dedicated to the limitations already stressed by the Authors.

      The following existing paragraph is placed in “Limitations” section

      “Our exploratory study has limitations in having a small sample of subjects along with inherent biases in the recruitment of subjects who had access to internet, were conversant in English and agreed to participate in the study. Nevertheless, it confirms the principles of built environment on well-being and health (22) and hopefully provides an impetus for development based on sound biopsychosocial concepts.”

      2020-09-14 14:30 UTC
      +1

      Agree with comments

      2020-07-24 11:20 UTC
      +1
      One person recommends this

      Comment on this review