Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 May 27;16(5):e0252395. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252395

Changes in physical activity levels, eating habits and psychological well-being during the Italian COVID-19 pandemic lockdown: Impact of socio-demographic factors on the Florentine academic population

Gabriele Mascherini 1,*, Dolores Catelan 2, Domenico E Pellegrini-Giampietro 3, Cristian Petri 1, Cristina Scaletti 1, Massimo Gulisano 1
Editor: Cristina Cortis4
PMCID: PMC8159001  PMID: 34043739

Abstract

The confinement and lockdown imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic have produced restrictions in the lifestyle of Italian citizens with variations in their psychological well-being. The aim of the study was to identify changes and relationship with socio-demographic parameters. An online survey was administered to 1383 subjects (1007 females and 307 males) working in the University of Florence, Italy. Three validated questionnaires were used for the survey: the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire, the Med Diet Score and the Psychological General Well-Being Index-A. All the subjects were asked to complete the questionnaires twice, in order to attain a picture of the habits before and a later time point during confinement. Our results show that work-related physical activity was decreased, along with an increase in sedentary behaviour (from 07:22±03:20 to 08:49±03:41 h:min; p<0.001, ES = 0.38), whereas recreational physical activity was increased (vigorous exercise varied from 568.5 ± 838.6 to 833.7 ± 1263.0 METs; p<0.002, ES = 0.25). Eating habits changed according to the place where meals were eaten, with an increased habit for breakfast and snacks and a slight increase in alcohol consumption. Psychological well-being decreased (Index from 21.4±3.9 to 18.0±5.3; p<0.001, ES = 0.723), especially in terms of vitality and positive thinking. The socio-demographic variables affecting these variations were mostly represented by age, gender and working conditions: young age and self-employment conditions can be considered factors for the changes in daily habits induced by confinement that may affect psychological well-being.

Introduction

In Italy, the first two cases of COVID-19 were confirmed on January 30, 2020, while the first viral outbreak was detected by 20 February 2020. In response to these first cases, on 21 February the Italian Minister of Health issued an ordinance that decreed a mandatory quarantine for those who had been in contact with subjects tested positive for COVID-19 and active surveillance and home stay for those who had spent time in areas at risk in the previous 14 days. The further increase in positive COVID-19 cases resulted in stricter containment policies which forced all Italian citizens to be quarantined between 11 March and 3 May, 2020 [1]. During these 53 days of quarantine, common retail businesses, educational activities, and catering services were suspended, gatherings of people in public spaces were prohibited, and travel by public or private means of transport was not allowed outside of the municipalities of residency, if not for documented work or health reasons [2].

The daily habits of Italian citizens in terms of physical activity and nutrition underwent severe changes on account of the forced domestic isolation.

Physical activity levels, for example, decreased not only because of the quarantine restrictions but also because of the order of the Italian Ministry of Health, which prohibited the access to parks and playgrounds and carrying out recreational activities or outdoor games. Individual physical activities were allowed only close to home, provided that a one-meter distance was maintained between individuals. Therefore, we can expect that both the frequency and the duration of physical activity decreased, especially for those who used to regularly attend gyms or health clubs before the restrictions [3, 4].

The different organization of work schedules produced changes in eating habits, in that all meals were eaten at home rather than in restaurants, cafes or bars. It can be reasonably hypothesized that the increased time spent at home promoted a reduction in take-away meals, increased the frequency of snacks and favoured the consumption of fresh food [5].

In addition to the changes in physical activity and eating habit due to the lockdown, we also must consider the effects on psychological well-being [6, 7]. During the quarantine period in the course of the Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome (MERS) epidemic, 7% of the subjects showed symptoms of anxiety and 17% showed feelings of anger, after 4–6 months after the end of the quarantine these values were decreased to 3% and 6%, respectively [8].

The aim of the present study was to identify the changes in physical activity levels, eating habits and psychological well-being during the March-May 2020 Italian lockdown by means of an online questionnaire that all faculty, staff and students members at the University of Florence were asked to complete. Also, the socio-demographic parameters and scores possibly affecting these variations were analysed, with particular attention to the changes in psychological well-being.

Materials and methods

Study population

In order to study the possible changes in physical activity, eating habits and psychological conditions induced by the quarantine during the COVID-19 pandemic, a questionnaire was distributed to be completed online. All faculty, technical/administrative staff and student members of University of Florence (teachers, students and technical / administrative staff) received an invitation via email to fill in the questionnaire anonymously. Self-eligibility criteria of participation in the study were: 1) age ≥ 18 years-old, 2) residence in Italy and 3) access to the Internet. Self-exclusion criteria were any form of illness, participation in a strict weight-loss control program participation, pregnancy or childbirth within one year prior to the beginning of the study.

The informed consent procedure disclosed that all data would be used only for research purposes only and that the data would not be publicly accessible. All responses from attendees were anonymous and confidential according to Google’s privacy policy, participants were not required to mention their names or contact information. In addition, participants were allowed to interrupt the completion of the questionnaire at any stage without providing any type of explanation. Before completing the survey, all participants had to sign the informed consent form and agreed to declare their voluntary participation in to the anonymous study.

The study was carried out in compliance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki of 1975 and was approved by the Ethical Commission of University of Florence (Protocol. n. 0086012, 19/06/2020).

Procedures

All participants were first requested to provide a number of general demographic questions including age, gender, level of education, marital status, dimensions of their house, number of inhabitants, presence of open space such as a garden or terrace, loss of relatives during lockdown, occupation before and during lockdown, and self-reported height and body weight. Then, three validated questionnaires were used:

  1. The Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ) for the assessment of physical activity level,

  2. The Med Diet Score for the identification of eating habits,

  3. The Psychological General Well-Being Index-A (PGWBI-A) test for the evaluation of alterations in psychological states.

Each questionnaire was proposed twice, the first time to assess the habits before quarantine, the second to evaluate the changes during quarantine (S2 File).

Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ)

The World Health Organization developed the GPAQ for the surveillance of physical activity in various countries [9]. It includes 16 questions and collects information on physical activity participation in three different settings as well as on sedentary behaviour. Vigorous intensity activities are defined in the Questionnaire as activities that require hard physical effort and cause large increases in breathing or heart rate, whereas moderate intensity activities are those that require moderate physical effort and cause small increases in breathing or heart rate. The domains are:

  • Activity at work: days per week and minutes per day of vigorous and/or moderate physical activity at work.

  • Moving to and from places: days per week and minutes per day of walking or bicycle use for at least 10 min continuously to get to and from places.

  • Recreational activities: with the exclusion of work and transport activities, days per week and minutes per day of vigorous and/or moderate physical activity during sports, fitness or leisure activities.

  • Sedentary behaviour: time usually spent in sitting or reclining at work, at home, traveling to and from places, or with friends, including time spent reading, playing games and watching television or a personal computer. Sleep time is not included.

In order to calculate individual overall energy expenditure using the GPAQ data, 4 Metabolic Equivalents of Task (METs) were assigned to time spent in moderate activities and 8 METs to time spent in vigorous activities. Applying MET values to activity levels allowed us to calculate total physical activity. Therefore, for analysis purposes these domains were further broken down into six different "sub-domains". These "sub-domains" were vigorous work, moderate work, moving, vigorous leisure, moderate leisure, sitting [10].

Med Diet Score

The Med Diet Score is a questionnaire that assesses eating habits according to the frequencies of weekly consumption of food groups [11]. The nine food groups are: non-refined cereals (e.g., whole grain bread, pasta, brown rice, etc.), fruits, vegetables, legumes, potatoes, fish, meat and meat products, poultry, full fat dairy products (e.g., cheese, yogurt, milk). Two additional food groups were represented by olive oil and alcohol. Individual ratings (from 0 to 5 or the reverse) were assigned to each food group according to their position in the Mediterranean diet pyramid. Thus, the score ranged from 0 to 55, with higher values indicating greater adherence to the Mediterranean diet.

Psychological General Well-Being Index-A (PGWBI-A)

The PGWBI-A can be considered as one of the first tools for the evaluation of quality of life. The final validated version, contains 22 selected items with response categories normalized according to a 6-point Likert scale, and values between 0 and 5 [12]. Six subscale scores covering the dimensions of Anxiety, Depression, Positive well-being, Self-control, General health and Vitality, and a global score (Index) can be calculated, and which providing a measure of psychological states. In 2016, in order to obtain greater acceptability, an abbreviated form reduced to six questions (one for each domain) was validated. The six questions were as follows:

  1. Anxiety, “Were you generally tense or did you feel any tension during the past month?”

  2. Depression, “Did you feel depressed during the past month?”

  3. Positive well-being, “I felt cheerful, light-hearted during the past month.”

  4. Self-control, “Have you been in firm control of your behaviour, thoughts, emotions or feelings during the past month?”

  5. General health, “Did you feel healthy enough to carry out the things you like to do or had to do during the past month?”

  6. Vitality, “How much energy, pep, or vitality did you have or feel during the past month?”

An increasing score, ranging from 0 to 30 or higher values, indicates better psychological well-being [13].

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics are reported in terms of mean and standard deviations. T-tests for paired data were used to compare before-during value of the different scores. The Cohen’s d Effect Size (ES) was calculated to determine the magnitude of effect. ES was assessed using the following criteria: small < 0.20, medium < 0.50 and large < 0.80.

We analysed the during/before score differences through linear regression models. For each of the scores we generated the during/before difference. This difference is used as an outcome in the regression models. The mean of the score before and after is used to adjust for subject-specific mean score [14]. We report regression coefficients from a model with subject specific mean score. Inference based on selected samples–e.g. due to low response rate–is valid provided variables related to the selection mechanism are identified and included as confounders in the analysis [15]. The multiple regression analysis performed on the outcome variables adjusts for individual propensity, which is the most plausible determinants of the response rate.

Calculations were carried out with IBM-SPSS® version 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA, 2017) and with Stata 16 (StataCorp. 2019. Stata Statistical Software: Release 16. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC).

Results

General characteristics of the population under study

Among the University of Florence estimated population of approximately 55000 members, 1383 subjects filled in the questionnaire (1007 females and 307 males, mean age 29.8±12.2 yrs and 33.2±14.5 yrs; respectively; 2.5% response rate). Thirty-two of them suffered the loss of a loved one due to COVID-19. Marital status, education level, house size, number of tenants during quarantine and the presence of open spaces in the house are shown in Fig 1.

Fig 1. This is the demographic information on the sample and housing characteristics during quarantine.

Fig 1

During the 53 days of quarantine the body weight of the sample population increased from 64.9±13.8 to 65.3±14.1 kg (p<0.001), therefore the mean BMI increased, albeit remaining in the normal range, from 22.7 to 22.8 kg/m2.

Physical activity

Weekly physical activity levels showed a reduction in work-related and travel-related METs: prior to quarantine, 67 subjects reported vigorous physical activity at work, 220 of them reported moderate physical activities at work and 797 reported physical activities during daily commuting. During the quarantine only 26, 83 and 358 subjects, respectively, continued these types of physical activity. As for recreational activities, an increase in METs was observed under both vigorous and moderate exercise. The increase in vigorous exercise was due to an increase in the weekly frequency and duration of activities for each subject during quarantine, while the increase in moderate exercise was due to an increase in subjects who practiced this type of activity (from 692 before quarantine to 780 during quarantine). As expected, the time spent in sedentary behaviours on average increased by about 1.30 h per day (Table 1).

Table 1. This is the weekly physical activity expressed as METs at work (vigorous and moderate), during transport activities (moving) and recreational exercise (vigorous and moderate), as well as daily time spent in sedentary behaviours.

All values are compared before and during the quarantine period.

Before confinement During confinement Δ (Δ %) 95% CI Δ p value Cohen’s d
METs Vigorous work 149.4±881.7 68.0±591.6 -81.4 (-54.5) 36.9–125.9 <0.001 0.19
METs Moderate work 304.5±901.6 108.8±549.5 -195.7 (-74.3) 152.2–239.3 <0.001 0.26
METs Moving 427.6±560.7 181.1±468.9 -246.6 (-57.7) 213.7–279.4 <0.001 0.48
METs Vigorous exercise 568.5±838.6 833.7±1263.0 265.2 (+46.6) 325.2–205.1 <0.001 0.25
METs Moderate exercise 381.5±550.4 492.9±672.5 111.4 (+29.2) 147.2–75.6 <0.001 0.18
Total METs 1831.6±1922.7 1684.5±1961.9 -147.1 (-8.1) 39.4–254.9 <0.01 0.08
Sedentary behaviours (h: min/day) 07:22±03:20 08:49±03:41 1:27 (+17.9) 1:17–1:36 <0.001 0.38

Eating habits

Fig 2 shows the place where meals were consumed. The comparison between pre and post-quarantine shows an increase in domestic consumption of all meals; in particular, subjects who had breakfast, mid-morning and mid-afternoon snacks, and dinner were increased.

Fig 2. These are the places where meals were consumed, as compared before and during the COVID-19 quarantine.

Fig 2

Data were reported as percentage of prevalence. H = Home; C = Canteen; B = Bar; R = Restaurant; NC = Not Consumed.

During the quarantine, foods such as cereals, potatoes, fruits and alcohol were selected more frequently; conversely, the choice of legumes, dairy products and red meat was decreased. However, these variations in the weekly frequency of food consumption did not alter the adherence score to the Mediterranean diet, which remained at medium-high values (Table 2).

Table 2. These are the frequencies of food group weekly consumption before and during the quarantine.

Before confinement During confinement Δ (Δ %) 95% CI Δ p value Cohen’s d
Cereals 1.7±1.0 1.9±1.1 0.21 (+11.9) 0.24–0.17 <0.001 0.19
Potatoes 1.0±0.5 1.1±0.6 0.07 (+7.4) 0.10–0.05 <0.001 0.18
Fruits 2.4±1.2 2.5±1.2 0.08 (+3.4) 0.12–0.04 <0.001 0.08
Vegetables 2.5±1.1 2.5±1.1 0.01 (+0.4) 0.05–0.03 0.283 0.00
Legumes 2.0±1.0 1.9±1.1 -0.06 (-3.1) 0.02–0.10 0.001 0.09
Fish 1.7±1.0 1.7±1.0 0.01 (+0.5) 0.05–0.03 0.313 0.0
Red meat 3.4±1.0 3.5±1.0 0.05 (+1.3) 0.08–0.02 0.002 0.10
White meat 3.7±0.8 3.7±0.9 -0.05 (-1.4) 0.02–0.08 <0.001 0.0
Dairy products 4.1±1.1 4.0±1.2 -0.17 (-4.1) 0.13–0.21 <0.001 0.09
Olive oil 3.7±1.6 3.7±1.6 0.0 (-0.1) 0.03–0.04 0.426 0.0
Alcohol 4.8±0.7 4.7±0.8 -0.07 (-1.6) 0.03–0.11 <0.001 0.13
Med Diet Score 31.0±4.1 31.1±4.3 0.07 (+0.2) 0.20–0.06 0.153 0.02

Data are shown in a score range from 0 to 5 according to their position in the Mediterranean diet pyramid. The Med Diet Score is the sum of all items in the same column.

Psychological well-being

The results related to psychological well-being are shown in Table 3. All the six domains that were analysed showed a reduction during the quarantine period. The main reductions were observed for the Positive well-being and to Vitality dimensions.

Table 3. This is the psychological general well-being index before and during the COVID-19 quarantine period.

Before confinement During confinement Δ (Δ %) 95% CI Δ p value Cohen’s d
Anxiety 2.6±1.2 2.3±1.4 -0.34 (-12.8) 0.3–0.4 <0.001 0.23
Depression 4.3±0.8 3.9±1.1 -0.44 (-10.1) -0.4–0.5 <0.001 0.41
Positive well-being 3.1±0.9 2.3±0.9 -0.77 (-25.2) -0.7–0.8 <0.001 0.83
Self-control 3.6±1.1 2.9±1.3 -0.73 (-20.2) 0.6–0.8 <0.001 0.56
General health 4.1±0.8 3.7±1.1 -0.39 (-9.5) 0.3–0.5 <0.001 0.41
Vitality 3.7±0.8 2.9±1.2 -0.81 (-21.8) 0.7–0.9 <0.001 0.79
Index 21.4±3.9 18.0±5.3 -3.47 (-16.2) 3.2–3.8 <0.001 0.73

* = p value < 0.001.

Relationship with socio-demographic variables

The relationship between socio-demographic variables and levels of physical activity, eating habits and psychological well-being are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. These are the results related to the relationship between physical activity, eating habits and psychological well-being with socio-demographic variables.

Physical Activity Eating Habits Psychological well-being
Coefficient CI 95% Coefficient CI 95% Coefficient CI 95%
Gender Male vs Female -313.1 -555.6;-70.5 0.16 -0.14;0.46 0.56 -0.06;1.18
Age (linear) -0.01 -0.02;0.001 0.40 0.02;0.06
Age (> median) Young vs Old 220.2 4.5;435.9 0.38 0.11;0.65 -1.19 -1.74;-0.65
Marital status Single Ref Ref Ref
Married -57.5 -309.7;194.6 -0.28 -0.59;0.03 1.03 0.39;1.68
Separated 497.3 -167.4;1161.9 0.43 -0.39;1.25 1.55 -0.12;3.22
Widow -1012.7 -3022.6;997.3 -1.21 -3.69;1.26 -0.36 -5.43;4.71
Education level High school Ref Ref Ref
Graduate -218.5 -450.4;13.3 -0.02 -0.31;0.27 0.43 -0.16;1.01
PhD -127.4 -508.4;253.6 0.34 -0.14;0.81 1.57 0.61;2.54
Inhabitants in house (linear) 51.7 -45.8;149.2 -0.01 -0.14;0.11 -0.26 -0.51;-0.02
Dimension of the house (linear) 102.6 -9.2;214.3 0.16 0.03;0.30 0.22 -0.06;0.50
Open space in house Nothing Ref Ref Ref
Terrace 111.7 -169.5;393.0 0.01 -0.34;0.36 0.11 -0.53;0.75
Garden 262.4 -6.9;531.7 -0.01 -0.34;0.32 -0.51 -1.23;0.20
Job during lockdown Smart working Ref Ref Ref
Students 266.7 24.4;509.1 -0.03 -0.34;0.27 -0.73 -1.35;-0.11
Others -402.7 -696.8;-108.6 -0.02 -0.38;0.34 -0.93 -1.67;-0.19
Loss of a loved one No vs Yes -1173.9 -1891.1;-456.8 -0.61 -1.49;0.27 0.67 -1.14;2.50
Job before lockdown Permanent employee Ref Ref Ref
Fixed-term employee -276.0 -691.8;139.8 0.23 -0.29;0.74 -0.45 -1.50;0.60
Self employed -1018.3 -1543.5;-493.1 -0.03 -0.68;0.62 -1.23 -2.56;0.10
Worker on call -611.0 -1205.7;-16.3 0.51 -0.23;1.25 -2.59 -4.11:-1.08
Stage 136.8 -740.5;1014.0 0.06 -1.03;1.15 -1.08 -3.31;1.14
Student 110.2 -153.0;373.4 0.14 -0.19;0.47 -1.27 -1.94;-0.60
Unemployed -552.2 -1603.9;499.7 0.28 -1.02;1.59 0.52 -2.16;3.20
Retired -163.5 -1509.4;1182.4 0.23 -1.45;1.9 -2.26 -5.68;1.15

Regression coefficients and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) of linear regression analysis on physical activity, eating habits and psychological well-being score. All analysis are adjusted for subject-specific mean psychological score (mean of during-before score).

The factors that favoured an engagement in physical activity were being female, of young age, a student, being separated or divorced, or having a house with a garden. On the other hand, those factors that hindered physical activity were being a male, a self-employed or on-demand worker, being widowed, or having suffered the loss of a loved one.

The factors that promoted healthy eating habits were young age and male gender, whereas the heterogeneity of the observed results did not allow the identification of factors that led to unhealthy nutritional choices.

The main protective factors against an impairment of psychological well-being appeared to be the male gender, adulthood, a high level of education and the size of the home. On the other hand, the factors that facilitated the deterioration of psychological well-being were being of young age, having a large number of inhabitants at home and the occupational changes. In particular, the workers that suffered major psychological distress were those who, before the confinement, had their own business or a job that was not constant but at the request of the employer.

Discussion

The goal of this study was to identify changes in physical activity level, eating habits and psychological well-being during the Italian COVID-19 pandemic quarantine. Faculty, administrative staff and student members of the University of Florence were invited to fill in an online questionnaire focussed on two different time point: the normal habits and behaviour before the quarantine and the changes during the limitations of the lockdown. Our results show an increase in sedentary behaviours and in recreational physical activity, moderate changes in eating habits, and a deterioration in psychological well-being.

An increase in obesity was hypothesized following the pandemic, with a consequent increase in cardiovascular risk. For preventive purposes, the literature had therefore promoted healthy eating and physical activity at home during the quarantine period [16, 17]. However, the results of the present study demonstrate a mean weight gain after the quarantine period of only 0.4±2.8 kg in 53 days. It should be considered that our sample population presented initial conditions of normal weight, characterized by both eating habits that meet the criteria of the Mediterranean diet, and relatively high levels of physical activity.

Physical activity

As expected, during the quarantine we observed reductions in physical activity related to work duties and daily transfers, with a concomitant increase in sedentary lifestyle. Because of the extra free time from work commitments, we also observed a parallel increase in recreational physical activity, in confirmation of Di Renzo et al. [18]. Specifically, vigorous physical activity was increased both in subjects who were already carrying it out before the quarantine and in subjects who decided to start a program of moderate physical activity during the quarantine. These results partially confirm a recent study on the psychological mechanisms underlying the practice of physical activity during the Italian lockdown [7]. The intention to carry out physical activity can be considered both a self-determined process, as demonstrated by the increase in levels of vigorous activity in those who practiced it even before the lockdown, and deliberative, as demonstrated by the increase in moderate activity levels in those who did not engage in any physical activity prior to the block [7]. In addition, we analysed the pre- and post-quarantine sedentary behaviours of the subjects. We can define a subject as sedentary if the number of hours of inactivity per day is > 7 [19]. The risk to be classified as sedentary during lockdown was demonstrated by this study to be around 5 (raw Odds Ratio OR = 4.68, CI 95%: 3.52; 6.31).

Eating habits

Domestic confinement also changed the eating habits. The prevalence of eating meals at home was definitely increased, with a larger number of subjects having breakfast and the two mid-morning and mid-afternoon snacks at home. Our results confirms previous data on the adherence to the Mediterranean diet of the Italian population during the COVID-19 lockdown [18]. The Mediterranean diet score did not change globally, but there was an improvement in the choice of cereals, potatoes and fruits that was associated with a slight increase in the consumption of alcohol.

The variations that we observed were rather moderate, which appears to be a common feature of studies on population lifestyle. In fact, the large standard deviations of our results describe a high variability in the habits of the subjects under study.

Psychological well-being

The COVID-pandemic by itself can produce acute panic, anxiety, obsessive behaviours, hoarding, paranoia and depression, disorders than can be exacerbated by the forced quarantine [20]. The PGWBI-A measures the self-representation of well-being and the emotional and affective distress, is sensitive to changes and is particularly useful with repeated measurements [13]. The results obtained in the present study reveal a worsening of all of the six domains investigated (Anxiety, Depression, Positive well-being, Self-control, General Health and Vitality) which results in an overall reduction of the final Index. The Index before and during the domestic confinement decreased significantly by 15.1%, an effect that was greater than that observed in other multicentre studies of similar samplings reporting a reduction in psychological well-being of 9.4% [21]. It should be noted that the dimensions of Positive well-being and Vitality displayed the largest reductions. Hence, it appears from our study that positive thoughts and perceived energy were significantly affected during the 53 days of home confinement.

Relationship with socio-demographic variables

A recent study on Italian college students has shown that physical exercise promotes healthy food choices and that by adopting both of these measures during quarantine it is possible to obtain a positive effect on mood states [22]. Although the relationship between physical exercise, nutrition and psychological well-being have been already investigated [23], the aim of our study was also to correlate the changes in physical activity, eating habits and psychological distress during the COVID-19 quarantine with a number of socio-demographic variables. Interestingly, a recent study conducted on a larger sample of our same population demonstrated the protective effect of physical activity against depression during the COVID-19 quarantine [24]. The present study revealed modest changes in the eating habits of interviewed subjects, an overall reduction in their physical activity levels but, at the same time, an increase in recreational physical activity. Therefore, we examined the relationship between socio-demographic variables and the levels of physical activity, detecting that a job occupation acts like a barrier whereas the student status allows greater levels of exercise.

The analysis of the relationship between socio-demographic variables and psychological well-being during confinement showed that adult males experienced minor psychological suffering as compared to females. In this context, marriage played a detrimental role since separated subjects reported to be affected by psychological suffering to a lesser extent. The examination of the living conditions showed that home dimensions had greater significance than the possibility of having outdoor spaces, probably because they allowed to maintain one’s privacy regardless of the number of inhabitants in each house. As for the variations induced by working conditions, self-employed has to be considered at higher risk of psychological distress. Finally, we must consider that the suffering manifested by the students is at least in part ascribable also to their young age.

A major strength of this study is the use of three validated questionnaires for each research area in order to obtain reproducible data. However, we must also consider some limitations of the study: firstly, a selection bias, that is the heterogeneity of the sample due to its relatively small size and the different University roles of the participants; secondly, a gender discrepancy in the study sample; and finally, the likelihood of biased negative thoughts when asked to remember happy and serene moments in life.

Due to the restrictions of the COVID-19 pandemic, our questionnaires were administered online; therefore, the possible approximation of to this type of administration needs to be considered and corrected in future studies. Future studies could also target specific categories of members of the universities or other companies. The sample size seems to partially compensate for the specificity of sample as far as the job and the residency site are concerned; however, our results and conclusions cannot be generalized to the general population belonging of other territories.

Conclusions

In accord with the likelihood of a lifestyle deterioration during quarantine, the sample examined showed changes in physical activity and eating habits. The expected increase in sedentary lifestyles was in some cases compensated by the use of a larger amount of free time to exercise or by healthier food choices. However, psychological well-being appears to be impaired mainly in young people and when working conditions change. Particularly self-employment conditions are more likely to expose people to a deterioration of psychological well-being.

Supporting information

S1 File. Results of questionnaire.

(XLSX)

S2 File. ABITUD-19 questionnaire.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Covid-19—Situazione in Italia available at http://www.salute.gov.it/portale/nuovocoronavirus/dettaglioContenutiNuovoCoronavirus.jsp?lingua=italiano&id=5351&area=nuovoCoronavirus&menu=vuoto accessed on line 30 July 2020
  • 2.Acuti Martellucci C, Flacco ME, Cappadona R, Bravi F, Mantovani L, Manzoli L. SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: An overview. Adv Biol Regul. 2020; 77:100736. 10.1016/j.jbior.2020.100736 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Qin F, Song Y, Nassis GP, Zhao L, Cui S, Lai L, et al. Prevalence of Insufficient Physical Activity, Sedentary Screen Time and Emotional Well-Being During the Early Days of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Outbreak in China: A National Cross-Sectional Study (3/31/2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3566176 or 10.2139/ssrn.3566176 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Chen P, Mao L, Nassis GP, Harmer P, Ainsworth BE, Li F. Coronavirus disease (COVID‐19): the need to maintain regular physical activity while taking precautions. J Sport Health Sci 2020; 9: 103–104 10.1016/j.jshs.2020.02.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Sánchez-Sánchez E, Ramírez-Vargas G, Avellaneda-López Y, Orellana-Pecino JI, García-Marín E, Díaz-Jimenez J. Eating Habits and Physical Activity of the Spanish Population during the COVID-19 Pandemic Period. Nutrients. 2020;12(9):E2826. 10.3390/nu12092826 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Brooks SK, Webster RK, Smith LE, Woodland L, Wessely S, Greenberg N, et al. The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence. Lancet 2020; 395: 912–920; 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30460-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Chirico A, Lucidi F, Galli F, Giancamilli F, Vitale J, Borghi S, et al. COVID-19 Outbreak and Physical Activity in the Italian Population: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the Underlying Psychosocial Mechanisms. Front Psychol. 2020;11:2100. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02100 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Jeong H, Yim HW, Song YJ, et al. Mental health status of people isolated due to Middle East Respiratory Syndrome. Epidemiol Health. 2016;38:e2016048. 10.4178/epih.e2016048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Global Physical Activity Surveillance available at https://www.who.int/ncds/surveillance/steps/GPAQ_Italian.pdf accessed on line 30 March 2020
  • 10.Bull FC, Maslin TS, Armstrong T. Global physical activity questionnaire (GPAQ): nine country reliability and validity study. J Phys Act Health. 2009;6(6):790–804. 10.1123/jpah.6.6.790 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Panagiotakos DB, Pitsavos C, Arvaniti F, Stefanadis C. Adherence to the Mediterranean food pattern predicts the prevalence of hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes and obesity, among healthy adults; the accuracy of the MedDietScore. Prev Med. 2007;44(4):335–340. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2006.12.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Dupuy H. J. (1984). The Psychological General Well-Being (PGWB) index. In Wenger N. K., Mattson M. E., Furberg C. D., Elinson J.(Eds.), Assessment of quality of life in clinical trials of cardiovascular therapies (pp. 170–183). Retrieved from https://www.openlibrary.org/works/OL9259175W/ Assessment_of_Quality_of_Life_in_Clinical_Trials_of_Cardiovascular_Therapies [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Testa S, Civilotti C, Di Fini G, Rossetto C, Boncinelli V, Veglia F. Development of two equivalent short forms of the Psychological General Well-Being Index: PGWBI-A and PGWBI-B. TPM Test Psychom Methodol Appl Psychol. 2016: 23(2):149–166. 10.4473/TPM23.2.2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Richiardi L, Pearce N, Pagano E, Di Cuonzo D, Zugna D, Pizzi C. Baseline selection on a collider: a ubiquitous mechanism occurring in both representative and selected cohort studies. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2019;73(5):475–480. 10.1136/jech-2018-211829 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Mattioli AV, Pinti M, Farinetti A, Nasi M. Obesity risk during collective quarantine for the COVID-19 epidemic. Obes Med. 2020;20:100263. 10.1016/j.obmed.2020.100263 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Gentil P, Barbosa de Lira CA, Souza D, Jimenez A, Mayo X, de Fátima Pinho Lins Gryschek AL, et al. Resistance Training Safety during and after the SARS-Cov-2 Outbreak: Practical Recommendations, Biomed Res Int. 2020, 23;2020:3292916 10.1155/2020/3292916 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Di Renzo L, Gualtieri P, Pivari F, Soldati L, Attinà A, Cinelli et al. Eating habits and lifestyle changes during COVID-19 lockdown: an Italian survey J Transl Med. 2020, 8;18(1):229. 10.1186/s12967-020-02399-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Du Y, Liu B, Sun Y, Snetselaar LG, Wallace RB, Bao W. Trends in Adherence to the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans for Aerobic Activity and Time Spent on Sedentary Behavior Among US Adults, 2007 to 2016. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(7):e197597. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.7597 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Dubey S, Biswas P, Ghosh R, Chatterjee S, Dubey MJ, Chatterjee S, et al. Psychosocial impact of COVID-19. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2020;14(5):779–788. 10.1016/j.dsx.2020.05.035 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ammar A, Mueller P, Trabelsi K, Chtourou H, Boukhris O, Masmoudi L, et al. ECLB-COVID19 Consortium. Psychological consequences of COVID-19 home confinement: The ECLB-COVID19 multicenter study. PLoS One. 2020;15(11):e0240204. 10.1371/journal.pone.0240204 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Amatori S, Donati Zeppa S, Preti A, Gervasi M, Gobbi E, Ferrini et al. Dietary Habits and Psychological States during COVID-19 Home Isolation in Italian College Students: The Role of Physical Exercise. Nutrients. 2020;12(12):E3660. 10.3390/nu12123660 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Cortis C, Puggina A, Pesce C, Aleksovska K, Buck C, Burns C, et al. Psychological determinants of physical activity across the life course: A "DEterminants of DIet and Physical ACtivity" (DEDIPAC) umbrella systematic literature review. PLoS One. 2017;12(8):e0182709. 10.1371/journal.pone.0182709 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Fornili M, Petri D, Berrocal C, Fiorentino G, Ricceri F, Macciotta A, et al. Psychological distress in the academic population and its association with socio-demographic and lifestyle characteristics during COVID-19 pandemic lockdown: Results from a large multicenter Italian study. PLoS One. 2021;16(3):e0248370. 10.1371/journal.pone.0248370 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Cristina Cortis

12 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-10183

Changes in psychological well-being, physical activity levels and eating habits during the Italian lockdown: influence of socio-demographic factors on the Florentine academic population.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mascherini,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 27 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Cristina Cortis, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

As you see from the reviewers' comments there are few suggestions that should be addressed before the paper can be finally accepted for publication. Make sure you carefully check the english writing as the journal does not provide language editing. 

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

4. Please upload an English language copy of the questionnaire as a supplemental file.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript topic is valuable however the English could be improved before it can be accepted for publication.

Line 51: The further increase in positive COVID-19 cases, resulted in stricter containment policies which forced all Italian citizens to be quarantined between 11 March-to 3 May, 2020.

Line 54: no new paragraph

Line 58: new paragraph:

Line 66: ?The different organization of work….that statement is confusing, consider revising.

Line 67. Consider revising. It can hypothesized that the increased time spent at home resulted in a reduction of takeaway meals and increased the frequency of snack and consumption of fresh food.

Line 70; witch – which. Another aspect witch is to considered, being related to eating habits and physical activity, is the effect on psychological well-being.

Consider; In addition to changes in eating habit and physical activity due to the lockdown, is the effect on psychological well-being.

Line:75-77. Consider: ……through an online questionnaire that all students and personnel at the University of Florence were asked to complete.

Line 90-96. Consider revising and simplify.

Line 101: Following general demographic questions (age, gender, level of

education, marital status, dimension of the house, presence of open space on the house, loss of

relatives during lockdown, number of inhabitants in the house job before and during lockdown),

three validated questionnaires were used:

Line 161:L T-tests

Line 166: generated

Line 231: not sure what ‘separation’ means.

DISCUSSION SECTION: no line numbers.

The results of the present study show a weight gain after the quarantine period of about 0.5 kg in 53 days.

(where were the body weights recorded and by whom?) This was not mentioned in the methods section..

Reviewer #2: Dear Prof. Dr. Cristina Cortis,

thank you very much for the possibility to serve as a reviewer in a prestigious periodical like Plos One.

About this paper titled “Changes in psychological wellbeing physical activity levels and eating habits during the Italian lockdown influence of sociodemographic factors on the Florentine academic population”, the contents and the rhetoric by which it was handled are appreciable and the paper is very well organized. Moreover, the analyzed topic is original and current.

Overview:

The objective of this study is to explore changes in psychological well-being, physical activity levels and eating habits during the Italian first lockdown in people belonging to the University of Florence. 1383 between teachers, students and technical / administrative staff filled out the questionnaire answering about marital status, education level, house size, number of tenants during quarantine, the presence of open spaces in the house, psychological well-being, physical activity levels and eating habits before and during the “stay-at-home” measures.

Data collected indicate that during the restrictions there was a general lifestyle deterioration. Indeed, sedentary lifestyles increased and phycological well-being decreased even though exercise in free time and the consume of healthier food increased.

General comment:

Nevertheless, this paper examining a trend topic and the study is original, some minor questions require clarification in order to improve the quality of the manuscript. I have listed below specific comments to the authors.

Material and Methods:

Lines 87 and 102: Participants had to answer about residence and house characteristics. Was taken into account also where the house was located (e.g. city, hill, mountains)? Should be a discriminating factor for phycological well-being?

Procedures:

Line 95 “to voluntary”: I suggest to remove “to”.

Line 103. “Number of inhabitants in the house” and Line 106. “eating habits”. There was a question (for the students) about living with parents? It’s possible for the students who lived with parents had different eating habits compared with who lived alone or with other students? It’s possible a sub analysis?

Lines 108 – 109 “each questionnaire was proposed twice, the first time in relation to habits before quarantine ..”. I think this design can generate a bias. Indeed, if I think, about habits before a worst period probably my habits appear better in every field. This doesn’t discredit the findings but I suggest to add a paragraph in limitations session.

Results:

Line 176 “2.5% response rate”: I suggest to add a possible rationale about this data. 1383 questionnaire collected are a great number, but the response rate is very low.

Table 2: In this table are presented the frequencies of weekly consumption of food groups and the differences between before and during restrictions. Did the authors collect data about calories? I think that frequencies are important but also quantities.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 May 27;16(5):e0252395. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252395.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


23 Apr 2021

Additional Editor Comments:

As you see from the reviewers' comments there are few suggestions that should be addressed before the paper can be finally accepted for publication. Make sure you carefully check the english writing as the journal does not provide language editing.

Dear editor, thank you for the work you have done.

The response letter to the reviewers was made after each point-by-point observation. Responses are highlighted in red.

A native English speaker proofread the revised version of the manuscript.

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

The revised version has made changes in accordance with the recommendations of the journal.

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

The authors revised the reference list by updating:

- reference 3: the URL and doi that were not yet available for the above prepress have been added

- reference 16: the published version has been inserted instead of ahead print version

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Captions for your Supporting Information files were included at the end of the manuscript, which coincide with those within the text.

4. Please upload an English language copy of the questionnaire as a supplemental file.

The English version of the questionnaire has been uploaded as supplemental file (S2 File)

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

A native English speaker proofread the revised version of the manuscript.

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript topic is valuable however the English could be improved before it can be accepted for publication.

The authors thank the reviewers for the work done.

Below are the answers point by point to the observations made in red.

In addition, the requested changes have been made in red in the text.

A native English speaker proofread the revised version of the manuscript.

Line 51: The further increase in positive COVID-19 cases, resulted in stricter containment policies which forced all Italian citizens to be quarantined between 11 March-to 3 May, 2020.

The text has been changed accordingly

Line 54: no new paragraph

The new paragraph has been removed

Line 58: new paragraph:

A new paragraph has been added

Line 66: ?The different organization of work….that statement is confusing, consider revising.

A native English speaker proofread the revised version of the manuscript.

Line 67. Consider revising. It can hypothesized that the increased time spent at home resulted in a reduction of takeaway meals and increased the frequency of snack and consumption of fresh food.

Yes, the reviewer interpreted correctly. This hypothesis derives from a previous published study conducted on the Spanish population doi: 10.3390/nu12092826.

However, a native English speaker proofread the revised version of the manuscript.

Line 70; witch – which. Another aspect witch is to considered, being related to eating habits and physical activity, is the effect on psychological well-being.

Consider; In addition to changes in eating habit and physical activity due to the lockdown, is the effect on psychological well-being.

Thanks, I apologize for the typo. The sentence was replaced with the one suggested by the reviewer

Line:75-77. Consider: ……through an online questionnaire that all students and personnel at the University of Florence were asked to complete.

The sentence was replaced with the one suggested by the reviewer

Line 90-96. Consider revising and simplify.

A native English speaker proofread the revised version of the manuscript.

Line 101: Following general demographic questions (age, gender, level of

education, marital status, dimension of the house, presence of open space on the house, loss of

relatives during lockdown, number of inhabitants in the house job before and during lockdown),

three validated questionnaires were used:

The sentence was replaced with the one suggested by the reviewer and revised by expert

Line 161:L T-tests

Modified

Line 166: generated

Modified

Line 231: not sure what ‘separation’ means.

The authors intended "to be separated or to be divorced". Therefore, the term was replaced with “being separated or divorced”

DISCUSSION SECTION: no line numbers.

The results of the present study show a weight gain after the quarantine period of about 0.5 kg in 53 days.

(where were the body weights recorded and by whom?) This was not mentioned in the methods section..

A sentence in Procedures section has been added “…..and self-reported height and body weight”

Reviewer #2: Dear Prof. Dr. Cristina Cortis,

thank you very much for the possibility to serve as a reviewer in a prestigious periodical like Plos One.

About this paper titled “Changes in psychological wellbeing physical activity levels and eating habits during the Italian lockdown influence of sociodemographic factors on the Florentine academic population”, the contents and the rhetoric by which it was handled are appreciable and the paper is very well organized. Moreover, the analyzed topic is original and current.

The authors thank the reviewers for the work done. Below are the answers point by point to the observations made in red. In addition, the requested changes have been made in red in the text. A native English speaker proofread the revised version of the manuscript.

Overview:

The objective of this study is to explore changes in psychological well-being, physical activity levels and eating habits during the Italian first lockdown in people belonging to the University of Florence. 1383 between teachers, students and technical / administrative staff filled out the questionnaire answering about marital status, education level, house size, number of tenants during quarantine, the presence of open spaces in the house, psychological well-being, physical activity levels and eating habits before and during the “stay-at-home” measures.

Data collected indicate that during the restrictions there was a general lifestyle deterioration. Indeed, sedentary lifestyles increased and phycological well-being decreased even though exercise in free time and the consume of healthier food increased.

General comment:

Nevertheless, this paper examining a trend topic and the study is original, some minor questions require clarification in order to improve the quality of the manuscript. I have listed below specific comments to the authors.

Material and Methods:

Lines 87 and 102: Participants had to answer about residence and house characteristics. Was taken into account also where the house was located (e.g. city, hill, mountains)? Should be a discriminating factor for phycological well-being?

The authors thank the reviewer for the comment. This aspect was not included in the questionnaire questions. By subjecting the sample to 3 questionnaires referring to 2 times (therefore 6 questionnaires) the general questions were reduced to a minimum in order not to burden the survey. In detail, the location of the house was not included as physical activity was only allowed near the house during the lockdown.

Procedures:

Line 95 “to voluntary”: I suggest to remove “to”.

Modified

Line 103. “Number of inhabitants in the house” and Line 106. “eating habits”. There was a question (for the students) about living with parents? It’s possible for the students who lived with parents had different eating habits compared with who lived alone or with other students? It’s possible a sub analysis?

The authors thank the reviewer for comment and for suggesting further analysis. However, there were no specific questions addressed to off-site students. It would probably have been appropriate to propose a specific questionnaire to the students, but this would have reduced the sample size. This could be useful for future study directions. However, a sentence has been added at the end of discussion section “Future studies could also target specific categories of members of the universities or other companies”

Lines 108 – 109 “each questionnaire was proposed twice, the first time in relation to habits before quarantine ..”. I think this design can generate a bias. Indeed, if I think, about habits before a worst period probably my habits appear better in every field. This doesn’t discredit the findings but I suggest to add a paragraph in limitations session.

The authors thank the reviewer for the comment. A sentence has been added in discussion section. “and finally, the likelihood of biased negative thoughts when asked to remember happy and serene moments in life.”

Results:

Line 176 “2.5% response rate”: I suggest to add a possible rationale about this data. 1383 questionnaire collected are a great number, but the response rate is very low.

The authors agree with the reviewer. However, it should be considered that during the first part of the pandemic, where containment measures were particularly high, research activities through online questionnaires increased. This has led to numerous invitations to fill in online surveys being sent: the response rate may be further reduced due to the high demand for participation in multiple surveys.

However, recent studies report how carrying out a selection process through cohort studies allows good reproducibility of the results regardless of the response rate. In support of this thesis, the authors report a sentence taken from the paper Richiardi L, Pearce N, Pagano E, Di Cuonzo D, Zugna D, Pizzi C. Baseline selection on a collider: a ubiquitous mechanism occurring in both representative and selected cohort studies. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2019 May;73(5):475-480. doi: 10.1136/jech-2018-211829:

“We conclude that, when conducting a cohort study, different source populations, whether ’selected’ or ’representative’, may lead to different exposure–outcome risk factor associations, and thus different degrees of lack of exchangeability, but that one approach is not inherently more or less biased than the other. The key issue is whether the relevant risk factors can be identified and controlled.”

In view of this, the authors may believe that they have identified and controlled the variables studied using three validated questionnaires.

Table 2: In this table are presented the frequencies of weekly consumption of food groups and the differences between before and during restrictions. Did the authors collect data about calories? I think that frequencies are important but also quantities.

The authors thank the reviewer for the comment. The purpose of the study refers to the quality of eating habits and adherence to the Mediterranean diet rather than quantity. Furthermore, the assessment of calorie intake through a self-reported online questionnaire would have required numerous questions (e.g. EatWellQ8 146-item FFQ), accompanied by images of the portions consumed. This would have burdened the compilation of the questionnaire, also in view of the double compilation (pre-covid and quarantine). Ultimately, this choice would have provided a low to moderate agreement for the measurement of energy intake.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Cristina Cortis

4 May 2021

PONE-D-21-10183R1

Changes in physical activity levels, eating habits and psychological well-being during the Italian COVID-19 pandemic lockdown: impact of socio-demographic factors on the Florentine academic population.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mascherini,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

As you can see from the comments, the paper is almost ready to be published. Before resubmitting the manuscript, please carefully check it for syntax and grammar, especially because PlosOne does not copyedit papers, as suggested by Reviewer 1.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 18 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Cristina Cortis, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: There are a few minor language issues but the revised manuscript is much stronger and ready for publication.

Reviewer #2: Dear Prof. Dr. Cristina Cortis,

thank you very much for the possibility to re-serve as a reviewer in a prestigious periodical like Plos One.

Also, I would like to commend the authors for their revision work. There is only one minor request, that I would like to reiterate. I think that adds value to the study.

The authors answered my question about response rate by emphasizing the use of three validated questionaries. This certainly shows the validity of the work, but I believe that what the authors reported in their reply to my comment should also be reported in the text at Line 176. I re-suggest to add a possible rationale about this data.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Revised Manuscript Review.docx

PLoS One. 2021 May 27;16(5):e0252395. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252395.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


5 May 2021

Review Comments to the Author

Dear Editor and Reviewers, thank you for the work done in order to improve our manuscript.

The response letter to the reviewers was made after each point-by-point observation. Responses are highlighted in red.

Reviewer #1: There are a few minor language issues but the revised manuscript is much stronger and ready for publication.

Line 29: the aim of the study was to identify changes in psychological well being and relationship with socio-demographic parameters.

Thank you for the proposal, corrections have been made accordingly.

Line 36: change were to was

Thank you for the proposal, corrections have been made accordingly.

Line 44-45: can be considered factors for the changes……(delete the word risk)

Thank you for the proposal, corrections have been made accordingly.

Line 148-149 (not sure if the words Metabolic Equivalents need to be capitalized)

In order to provide the reader with an overall definition of the abbreviation, the authors prefer to leave it in its entirety by including also the term TASK that completes the abbreviation MET.

Line 225: Figure 2 shows the place where meals were consumed.

Thank you for the proposal, corrections have been made accordingly.

Line 226: The comparison between pre and post-quarantine shows………..

Thank you for the proposal, corrections have been made accordingly.

Discussion Section:

This needs to be re-written for clarity.

Because an increase in obesity has been was hypothesized following the pandemic, with a consequent increase in cardiovascular risk, the scientific For preventive purposes, the literature was had therefore geared towards promoted preventive measures such as healthy eating and physical activity at home during the quarantine period [15, 16].

Thank you for the proposal, the actual sentence is: “An increase in obesity was hypothesized following the pandemic, with a consequent increase in cardiovascular risk. For preventive purposes, the literature had therefore promoted healthy eating and physical activity at home during the quarantine period.”

However, psychological well-being appears to be impaired mainly in people of affected by young age and when working conditions change.

Consider changing to

However, psychological well-being appears to be impaired mainly in young people of when working conditions change.

Thank you for the proposal, the actual sentence is: “However, psychological well-being appears to be impaired mainly in young people and when working conditions change.”

Reviewer #2: Dear Prof. Dr. Cristina Cortis,

thank you very much for the possibility to re-serve as a reviewer in a prestigious periodical like Plos One.

Also, I would like to commend the authors for their revision work. There is only one minor request, that I would like to reiterate. I think that adds value to the study.

The authors answered my question about response rate by emphasizing the use of three validated questionaries. This certainly shows the validity of the work, but I believe that what the authors reported in their reply to my comment should also be reported in the text at Line 176. I re-suggest to add a possible rationale about this data.

Thank you for the proposal. As suggest by reviewer, a sentence has been added at line 173, just before the version of the software used for statistical analysis:

“Inference based on selected samples – e.g. due to low response rate – is valid provided variables related to the selection mechanism are identified and included as confounders in the analysis [15]. The multiple regression analysis performed on the outcome variables adjusts for individual propensity, which is the most plausible determinants of the response rate.”

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Cristina Cortis

17 May 2021

Changes in physical activity levels, eating habits and psychological well-being during the Italian COVID-19 pandemic lockdown: impact of socio-demographic factors on the Florentine academic population.

PONE-D-21-10183R2

Dear Dr. Mascherini,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Cristina Cortis, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors successfully dealt with the required revisions and addressed all comments raised by the Reviewers.

Therefore, I think the paper could be now accepted for publication. 

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This re-write reads considerably better than the original submission. Excellent work by the authors to improve readability.

Reviewer #2: Dear Editor and Authors,

I appreciate the author’s work, and reply. All answers satisfy my requests.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Cristina Cortis

19 May 2021

PONE-D-21-10183R2

Changes in physical activity levels, eating habits and psychological well-being during the Italian COVID-19 pandemic lockdown: impact of socio-demographic factors on the Florentine academic population.

Dear Dr. Mascherini:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Dr. Cristina Cortis

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Results of questionnaire.

    (XLSX)

    S2 File. ABITUD-19 questionnaire.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Revised Manuscript Review.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES