Change in modifiable dementia risk factors during COVID‐19 lockdown: The experience of over 50s in Tasmania, Australia

Abstract

Introduction Containment measures implemented to minimize the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) are reported to be negatively affecting mental health, diet, and alcohol consumption. These factors, as well as poor cardiometabolic health and insufficient physical and cognitive activity, are known to increase the risk of developing dementia. COVID‐19 “lockdown” measures may have exacerbated these dementia risk factors among people in mid‐to‐later life. Methods We compared longitudinal data from before (October 2019) and during (April‐June 2020) the first COVID‐19 lockdown period in Tasmania, Australia. Participants (n = 1671) were 50+ years of age and engaged in a public health program targeting dementia risk reduction, with one‐third participating in the Preventing Dementia Massive Open Online Course (PD‐MOOC). Regression models were used to assess changes in smoking, alcohol use, body mass index (BMI), diet, physical exercise, cognitive and social activity, anxiety and depression, and management of cholesterol, diabetes, and blood pressure. Where significant changes were noted, the moderating influence of being in current employment, living with others, and completing the PD‐MOOC was tested. Results Although friend networks contracted marginally during lockdown, no detrimental effects on modifiable dementia risk factors were noted. Anxiety levels and alcohol consumption decreased, there was no change in depression scores, and small but significant improvements were observed in cognitive and physical activity, smoking, diet, and BMI. Stronger improvements in cognitive activity were observed among people who were cohabiting (not living alone) and both cognitive activity and adherence to the MIND diet (Mediterranean‐DASH diet Intervention for Neurological Delay) improved more for people who participated in the PD‐MOOC. Discussion Longitudinal data did not show widespread negative effects of COVID‐19 lockdown on modifiable dementia risk factors in this sample. The results counter the dominant narratives of universal pandemic‐related distress and suggest that engaging at‐risk populations in proactive health promotion and education campaigns during lockdown events could be a protective public health strategy.

Changes in Physical Activity Patterns Due to the Covid-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…The majority of studies noted a significant reduction in PA during the Covid-19 lockdown ( n = 32). In contrast, only few studies found an increase in PA ( n = 5) [ 57 , 72 , 84 , 100 , 109 ] while six studies failed to detect any changes in PA [ 50 , 51 , 68 , 71 , 86 , 99 ]. Fourteen other studies showed both, a decrease and an increase in PA, depending on the PA characteristics under study.…”

“…The four studies with participants from age groups 2 and 3 (20 to over 65 years) included a total of 24,066 (11,561 female) participants with a mean age between 51.6 years [ 106 ] and 63.4 years [ 72 ].…”

“…Hino and Asami [ 66 ] andWang et al [ 106 ] used DB measurement methods exclusively, and Bartlett et al [ 72 ] and Ribeiro de Lima et al [ 52 ] used SR measurement methods only. Bartlett et al [ 72 ] were the only researchers who were able to identify a significant increase in total PA. In contrast, the results of Hino and Asami [ 66 ] and of Wang et al [ 106 ] showed that daily/weekly steps significantly decreased.…”

“…The results showed a heterogeneous picture, with evidence for both decreased and increased PA. However, the majority of the included studies (32/57) reported a significant decrease in PA and only 5 out of 57 showed a significant increase in the measured PA variables [ 57 , 72 , 84 , 100 , 109 ]. The remaining 14 studies showed both negative and positive changes in different domains of PA [ 52 , 55 , 64 , 65 , 70 , 73 , 76 , 77 , 79 , 81 , 83 , 93 , 104 , 110 ], and six studies did not indicate any change in PA [ 50 , 51 , 68 , 71 , 86 , 99 ].…”

“…The remaining 13 studies investigated participants from multiple age groups. Four studies investigated age groups 1 and 2 [ 87 , 102 , 103 , 111 ], four groups 2 and 3 [ 52 , 66 , 72 , 106 ] and five studies investigated participants of all ages [ 56 , 58 , 78 , 94 , 108 ]. Out of these, only one study revealed an increase in PA [ 72 ].…”