Residential mobility restrictions and adverse mental health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, several governments tried to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, with lockdowns that prohibited leaving one's residence unless carrying out a few essential services. We investigate the relationship between limitations to mobility and mental health in the UK during the first year and a half of the pandemic using a unique combination of high-frequency mobility data from Google and monthly longitudinal data collected through the Understanding Society survey. We find a strong and statistically robust correlation between mobility data and mental health survey data and show that increased residential stationarity is associated with the deterioration of mental wellbeing even when regional COVID-19 prevalence and lockdown stringency are controlled for. The relationship is heterogeneous, as higher levels of distress are seen in young, healthy people living alone; and in women, especially if they have young children.

Working parents, financial insecurity, and childcare: mental health in the time of COVID-19 in the UK.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the policy measures to control its spread-lockdowns, physical distancing, and social isolation-have coincided with the deterioration of people's mental well-being. We use data from the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS) to document how this phenomenon is related to the situation of working parents who now have to manage competing time demands across the two life domains of work and home. We show that the deterioration of mental health is worse for working parents, and that it is strongly related to increased financial insecurity and time spent on childcare and home schooling. This burden is not shared equally between men and women, and between richer and poorer households. These inequalities ought to be taken into account when crafting policy responses.

Who responds to financial incentives for weight loss? Evidence from a randomized controlled trial.

There is a paucity of evidence on the heterogeneous impacts of financial incentives on weight loss. Between March 2010 and January 2012, in a randomized controlled trial, we assigned 700 obese persons to three experimental arms. We test whether particular subgroups react differently to financial incentives for weight loss. Two treatment groups obtained a cash reward (€150 and €300 with 237 and 229 participants, respectively) for achieving an individually-assigned target weight within four months; the control group (234 participants) was not incentivized. Participants and administrators were not blinded to the intervention. We find that monetary rewards effectively induced obese individuals to reduce weight across all subgroups. However, there is no evidence for treatment-effect heterogeneity for those groups that were incentivized. Among those who were in the €300 group, statistically significant and large weight losses were observed for women, singles, and those who are not working (all above 4 kg in four months). In addition, the magnitude of the reward matters only for women and migrants. The effectiveness of financial incentives to reduce weight nevertheless raises sensitive ethical issues that should be taken into consideration by policymakers.