Abstract:We assessed the contribution of selected built environment factors to body weight in a pilot study in urban Visakhapatnam, South India. Participants were 123 men and 60 women (age 16 to 69 years; BMI 17.3-30.5) who had lived in the area for at least 3 years. Individuals with lower BMI tended to be (a) working people (non-home based-working away from home), (b) non-vegetarians, (c) physically active (activity mostly related to work), and (d) taking afternoon siestas. Psychological stress, quality of life and wellbeing data were used from an earlier study of individuals with diabetes mellitus. The measures included were depression, anxiety, energy, positive wellbeing, satisfaction, impact, and social worry and diabetes worry (Diabetes quality of life). Guttman's Smallest Space Analysis (SSA) suggested the relationships among the psychosocial measures can be accounted for by one facet with three axial sets of variables (a) positive wellbeing and energy, (b) satisfaction, impact, and social worry and diabetes worry, and (c) anxiety and depression. SSAs on male participants suggested that fasting blood glucose and weight were most closely associated with anxiety and energy levels. In female participants, weight and fasting glucose were most closely associated with energy and to a somewhat lesser extent with anxiety. In both sexes, age was closely associated with positive wellbeing. Also in both sexes, age, weight, and fasting glucose levels were closely associated with each other. The results support the importance of understanding the impact of built environment and psychosocial factors on body weight in diabetic individuals for designing prevention strategies.

In an effort to arrest the spread of coronavirus (COVID-19) infection, a nationwide lockdown was declared in India in March 2020. To assess how personal built environments affected the citizens in the first few weeks, an explorative online survey was conducted, eliciting responses about work habits before the lockdown, psychological wellbeing, time spent in various activities, characteristics of those who worked from home, and food and sleep patterns. We received 121 (76 male and 45 female) responses with an average age of 35.5 years [max: 70 years, min: 18 years, standard deviation (SD): 12.9 years]. The major difference caused by the lockdown was a reduction in the time taken and distance travelled of the commute to workplaces, which was an average of 30 minutes and 9.5 km, respectively. In terms of diet, subjects who were vegetarian did not experience any difference, unlike those who were non-vegetarians (p < 0.05). The results show an association of the dependent variable of ‘feeling in general’ with predictor variables of ‘energy, pep, vitality’ and ‘feel healthy to work’ during the pandemic, whereas the predictor variables of ‘energy, pep, vitality’, ‘happy and satisfied personal life’, ‘feel healthy to work’ show an association with the dependent variable of ‘feeling in general’ before the lockdown with a significance of p < 0.02 and R2 = 0.51 and R2 = 0.60, respectively. Among those who worked from home in constrained environments, people found spaces and seemed to adapt reasonably well to the built environment with employees showing a preference for working from bedrooms and students for working from ‘sit-out’ (outside) spaces (p < 0.05). There was no change in the quality or quantity of sleep during the lockdown. This study in the early weeks of the lockdown documents the way in which individuals lived through it in terms of the built environment at home.