Covid-19 shelter-at-home and work, lifestyle and well-being in desk workers.

BACKGROUND: Emerging cross-sectional reports find that the COVID-19 pandemic and related social restrictions negatively affect lifestyle behaviours and mental health in general populations. AIMS: To study the longitudinal impact of COVID-19 on work practices, lifestyle and well-being among desk workers during shelter-at-home restrictions. METHODS: We added follow-up after completion of a clinical trial among desk workers to longitudinally measure sedentary behaviour, physical activity, sleep, diet, mood, quality of life and work-related health using validated questionnaires and surveys. We compared outcomes assessed before and during COVID-19 shelter-at-home restrictions. We assessed whether changes in outcomes differed by remote working status (always, changed to or never remote) using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). RESULTS: Participants (N = 112; 69% female; mean (SD) age = 45.4 (12.3) years; follow-up = 13.5 (6.8) months) had substantial changes to work practices, including 72% changing to remote work. Deleterious changes from before to during shelter-at-home included: 1.3 (3.5)-h increase in non-workday sedentary behaviour; 0.7 (2.8)-point worsening of sleep quality; 8.5 (21.2)-point increase in mood disturbance; reductions in five of eight quality of life subscales; 0.5 (1.1)-point decrease in work-related health (P < 0.05). Other outcomes, including diet, physical activity and workday sedentary behaviour, remained stable (P ≥ 0.05). Workers who were remote before and during the pandemic had greater increases in non-workday sedentary behaviour and stress, with greater declines in physical functioning. Wake time was delayed overall by 41 (61) min, and more so in workers who changed to remote. CONCLUSIONS: Employers should consider supporting healthy lifestyle and well-being among desk workers during pandemic-related social restrictions, regardless of remote working status.

Applying a technology-based system for weight loss in adults with obesity.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare an in-person, group-based behavioral weight loss intervention to technology-based interventions in adults with obesity. METHODS: Adults (N = 39; body mass index: 39.5 ± 2.8 kg m-2; age: 39.9 ± 11.5 years) participated in a 6-month program with randomization to one of three intervention groups: standard behavioral weight loss, a technology-based system combined with a monthly intervention telephone call (TECH) or an enhanced technology-based system combined with a monthly intervention telephone call (EN-TECH). All groups were prescribed an energy-restricted diet and physical activity. Assessments occurred at 0, 3 and 6 months. Separate mixed-effects models using unstructured dependence structure were fit to the outcomes. RESULTS: Weight loss (least square means ± standard error) at 6 months was -6.57 ± 1.65 kg in standard behavioral weight loss, -5.18 ± 1.72 kg in TECH and -6.25 ± 1.95 kg in EN-TECH (p-value for time effect ≤ 0.0001). A similar pattern was observed for change in body mass index, waist circumference and percent body fat. There was a decrease in total energy intake (p = 0.0005) and percent dietary fat intake (p = 0.0172), and physical activity increased (p = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide initial information on the use of technology-based interventions that include wearable devices combined with brief monthly telephone calls for weight loss in adults with obesity.