The COVID-19 pandemic and temporal change in metabolic risk factors for cardiovascular disease: A natural experiment within the HELIUS study.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, including the restrictive measures taken to reduce the spread of the virus, negatively affected people's health behavior. We explored whether the pandemic also had an effect on metabolic risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in women and men. We conducted a natural experiment, using data from 6962 participants without CVD at baseline (2011-2015) of six ethnic groups of the HELIUS study in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. We studied whether participants whose follow-up measurements were taken within the 11 months before the pandemic (control group) differed from those whose measurements were taken taken within 6 months after the first lockdown (exposed group). Using sex-stratified linear regressions with inverse probability weighting, we compared changes in baseline- and follow-up data between the control and exposed group in six metabolic risk factors: systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP), total cholesterol (TC), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Next, we explored the mediating effect of changes in body-mass index (BMI), alcohol, smoking, depressive symptoms and negative life events at follow-up. We observed less favorable changes in SBP (+1.12mmHg for women, +1.38mmHg for men), DBP (+0.85mmHg, +0.80mmHg) and FPG (only in women, +0.12 mmol/L) over time in the exposed group relative to the control group. Conversely, changes in HbA1c (-0.65 mmol/mol, -0.84 mmol/mol) and eGFR (+1.06 mL/min, +1.04 mL/min) were more favorable in the exposed compared to the control group, respectively. Changes in SBP, DBP, and FPG were partially mediated by changes in behavioral factors, in particular BMI and alcohol consumption. Concluding, the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular behavioral changes associated with restrictive lockdown measures, may have negatively affected several CVD risk factors, in both women and men.

Community, work, and family in times of COVID-19

We are living in challenging and uncertain times. At the time this article was edited, there were already more than 2.4 million confirmed cases of the corona virus (COVID-19) (World Health Organization, 2020). Nearly every country across the globe is struggling to reduce the spread of the COVID-19 virus and limit its health, societal, and economic consequences. The full impact on community, work, family, and its intersections is not yet clear. As the Editorial Board of Community, Work & Family, we share a deep concern for the potential impact of this global health pandemic. We similarly stand in awe to all the communities, workers, and families doing their utmost to combat it. In this article, we do not attempt to provide definitive answers or even recommendations to address the problems we are witnessing. We do, however, feel the need to raise a collective voice about the significant potential for increased inequality. COVID-19 is not a great leveler. In all likelihood, COVID-19 will exacerbate existing inequalities, both in its immediate consequences resulting from the drastic measures taken to contain its spread, as well as its potential long-term consequences. These inequalities may take many forms. We highlight a number of them here as they relate to this journal's focus on community, work, and family. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

De invloed van de coronacrisis op de relatieve verdeling van zorg door moeders en vaders

For many parents, the combination of work and care was already demanding and unevenly distributed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has clearly influenced the relative division of care tasks, but how and why remains unclear. We use longitudinal panel data from the LISS panel, collected in April, June and November 2020, to analyze the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the relative distribution of care by mothers and fathers in the Netherlands. A complex picture emerges from these longitudinal analyses, and several theoretical perspectives appear to be relevant. We conclude that time availability mainly has an effect at the beginning of the pandemic, while relative resources play a role the longer the pandemic endures.

Unequal but balanced: Highly educated mothers’ perceptions of work–life balance during the COVID-19 lockdown in Finland and the Netherlands

One year after the European work–life balance directive, which recognises the need for work–family policy support, measures to slow the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic began shaping parents’ work–life balance in significant ways. Academically, we are challenged to explore whether existing theoretical frameworks hold in this new environment with combined old and new policy frameworks. We are also challenged to understand the nuanced ways in which the first lockdown affects the combination of paid work and care. We address both of these issues, providing a cross-sectional comparative analysis of highly educated mothers’ perceptions of work–life balance during the COVID-19 pandemic in Finland and the Netherlands. Our findings show that highly educated Finnish mothers have more difficulty combining work and care during the first lockdown than Dutch mothers. The absence of state-provided care during the lockdown creates greater difficulty for full-time working Finnish mothers in a dual-earner/state-carer system than an absence of such care in the Dutch one-and-a-half earner system, where most mothers work part time. Further analyses suggest variation in part-time and (nearly) full-time hours mitigates the work–life balance experiences of highly educated Dutch mothers. Additional factors explaining cross-country variation or similarities include the presence of young children and the presence of a partner. We discuss these findings in light of current theoretical frameworks and highlight avenues for future research. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Journal of European Social Policy is the property of Sage Publications, Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Social Inequality and Solidarity in Times of COVID-19.

The enormous public health burdens of the COVID-19 pandemic are not distributed equally. Inequalities are noticeable along socio-economic and socio-cultural fault lines. These social determinants of health affect both the prevalence and severity of COVID-19 infections as well as the magnitude of negative impacts of the measures taken to slow the spread of the virus. This perspective paper summarizes key inequalities in who is affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection and in who is affected by COVID-19 prevention measures, based on evidence presented in state-of-the-art literature, and discusses the scope of challenges that these inequalities pose to solidarity and social justice. Key challenges for solidarity are highlighted across three areas: challenges to intergenerational solidarity, to global solidarity, and to intergroup solidarity.

'Intelligent' lockdown, intelligent effects? Results from a survey on gender (in)equality in paid work, the division of childcare and household work, and quality of life among parents in the Netherlands during the Covid-19 lockdown.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic is more than a public health crisis. Lockdown measures have substantial societal effects, including a significant impact on parents with (young) children. Given the existence of persistent gender inequality prior to the pandemic, particularly among parents, it is crucial to study the societal impact of COVID-19 from a gender perspective. The objective of this paper is to use representative survey data gathered among Dutch parents in April 2020 to explore differences between mothers and fathers in three areas: paid work, the division of childcare and household tasks, and three dimensions of quality of life (leisure, work-life balance, relationship dynamics). Additionally, we explore whether changes take place in these dimensions by comparing the situation prior to the lockdown with the situation during the lockdown. METHOD: We use descriptive methods (crosstabulations) supported by multivariate modelling (linear regression modelling for continuous outcomes; linear probability modelling (LPM) for binary outcomes (0/1 outcomes); and multinomial logits for multinomial outcomes) in a cross-sectional survey design. RESULTS: Results show that the way in which parents were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic reflects a complex gendered reality. Mothers work in essential occupations more often than fathers, report more adjustments of the times at which they work, and experience both more and less work pressure in comparison to before the lockdown. Moreover, mothers continue to do more childcare and household work than fathers, but some fathers report taking on greater shares of childcare and housework during the lockdown in comparison to before. Mothers also report a larger decline in leisure time than fathers. We find no gender differences in the propensity to work from home, in perceived work-life balance, or in relationship dynamics. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, we find that gender inequality in paid work, the division of childcare and household work, and the quality of life are evident during the first lockdown period. Specifically, we find evidence of an increase in gender inequality in relation to paid work and quality of life when comparing the situation prior to and during the lockdown, as well as a decrease in gender inequality in the division of childcare and household work. We conclude that the unique situation created by restrictive lockdown measures magnifies some gender inequalities while lessening others. DISCUSSION: The insights we provide offer key comparative evidence based on a representative, probability-based sample for understanding the broader impact of lockdown measures as we move forward in the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the limitations in this study is the cross-sectional design. Further study, in the form of a longitudinal design, will be crucial in investigating the long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on gender inequality.