| Literature DB >> 35178680 |
Mikhail F Borisenkov1, Sergey V Popov2, Vasily V Smirnov2, Denis G Gubin3,4, Ivan M Petrov3, Tatyana N Vasilkova3, Svetlana V Solovieva3, Ekaterina A Martinson5, Anna A Pecherkina6, Olga I Dorogina6, Elvira E Symaniuk6.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The concept of time perspective (TP) implies that a mental focus on past, present, or future affect a person makes decisions and take action. Inability to plan their life for a sufficiently long time perspective due to the COVID-19 pandemic appeared to have a pronounced impact on a human's lifestyle influencing their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, including eating behavior. This study tested two hypotheses: (a) that during COVID-19 isolation, the incidence rate of food addiction is increased, and (b) people with present TP are more likely exhibited signs of food addiction (FA).Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Food addiction; Isolation; Time perspective
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35178680 PMCID: PMC8853916 DOI: 10.1007/s40519-021-01259-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eat Weight Disord ISSN: 1124-4909 Impact factor: 3.008
Mean values and standard deviations of parameters measured
| Parameter, units | Abbreviations (instrument) | Mean | SD |
|---|---|---|---|
| 949 | |||
| Age, years | 21.81 | 7.77 | |
| Body mass index, % | BMI | 48.90 | 24.47 |
| Waist-to-height ratio | WHtR | 0.42 | 0.07 |
| Time perspective | TP | ||
| Past negative, scores | PA− (ZTPI) | 3.25 | 0.48 |
| Past positive, scores | PA+ (ZTPI) | 2.87 | 0.70 |
| Present hedonistic, scores | PRH (ZTPI) | 3.60 | 0.50 |
| Present fatalistic, scores | PRF (ZTPI) | 3.59 | 0.58 |
| Future, scores | FUT (ZTPI) | 2.75 | 0.50 |
| Deviation from balanced TP, scores | DBTP (ZTPI) | 2.27 | 0.65 |
| Food addiction | |||
| Food addiction, % | FA (YFAS) | 15.49 | |
| Symptom counts of FA, scores | SC (YFAS) | 2.45 | 1.65 |
ZTPI Zimbardo time perspective inventory, YFAS Yale food addiction scale
Results of logistic regression analysis
| Dependent variable | Predictors | OR | 95% CI | Omnibus test | Hosmer–Lemeshow test | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COVID-19 isolation | Sex | − 0.430 | 0.645 | 0.533–0.779 | 0.000 | 272.196 | 0.000 | 4.369 | 0.822 |
| Age | 0.109 | 1.115 | 1.096–1.135 | 0.000 | |||||
| FA | 0.523 | 1.687 | 1.324–2.148 | 0.000 | |||||
FA food addiction, B non-standardized regression coefficient, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval
Results of multiple regression analyses
| Model # | Dependent variable | Predictors | VIF | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | PA− | SC | 0.123 | 0.289 | 0.000 | 0.096 | 0.096 | 1.024 |
| Age | − 0.011 | − 0.131 | 0.000 | 0.108 | 0.012 | 1.078 | ||
| WHtR | 0.799 | 0.076 | 0.039 | 0.114 | 0.006 | 1.073 | ||
| 2 | PA+ | Sex | − 0.153 | − 0.103 | 0.006 | 0.011 | 0.011 | 1.000 |
| 3 | PRH | SC | 0.068 | 0.230 | 0.000 | 0.066 | 0.066 | 1.015 |
| Age | − 0.012 | − 0.203 | 0.000 | 0.110 | 0.044 | 1.017 | ||
| Sex | − 0.113 | − 0.089 | 0.013 | 0.117 | 0.007 | 1.010 | ||
| 4 | PRF | SC | 0.063 | 0.213 | 0.000 | 0.046 | 0.046 | 1.000 |
| 5 | FUT | SC | − 0.051 | − 0.169 | 0.000 | 0.026 | 0.026 | 1.005 |
| Sex | − 0.144 | − 0.111 | 0.003 | 0.038 | 0.012 | 1.005 | ||
| 6 | DBTP1 | SC | 0.098 | 0.251 | 0.000 | 0.060 | 0.060 | 1.005 |
| Sex | 0.139 | 0.083 | 0.023 | 0.067 | 0.007 | 1.005 |
PA + (−) past positive (negative) time perspective (TP), PR present hedonistic (fatalistic) TP, FUT future TP, DBTP deviation from balanced TP, WHtR waist-to-height ratio, SC symptom counts of food addiction. A series of multiple regression analyses were performed using PA + (−), PRH(F), FUT, and DBTP as dependent variables and Age, Sex (0—female; 1—male), City (1—Syktyvkar; 2—Tyumen; 3—Yekaterinburg; 4—Kirov), BMI, WHtR, and SC as independent variables (predictors); a stepwise inclusion procedure was used to determine the final set of predictors in the model. To assess multicollinearity, the variance inflation factor (VIF) was assessed. B = non-standardized regression coefficient; β = standardized regression coefficient; P = significance of regression coefficient; R2 = total variance accounted by predictors at their stepwise inclusion in the model; ΔR2 = portion of the variance accounted for by separate predictors in the model; 1 in this model, the DBTP was evaluated. Therefore, interpretation of the signs of the regression coefficients was opposite to that used in models 1–5
Results of correlation analyses
| SC | ||
|---|---|---|
| Males | Females | |
| 206 | 744 | |
| PA− | 0.32** | 0.33** |
| PA+ | 0.02 | − 0.09 |
| PRH | 0.29** | 0.26** |
| PRF | 0.28** | 0.20** |
| FUT | − 0.15* | − 0.20** |
| DBTP | 0.24** | 0.28** |
PA + (−) past positive (negative) time perspective (TP), PR present hedonistic (fatalistic) TP, FUT future TP, DBTP deviation from balanced TP, SC symptom counts of food addiction, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01