Pre-post study analyzes physical activity's effects on health outcomes in hypertensive and diabetic individuals, indicating significant declines post-lockdown.
Background and Aims Restrictions during the COVID‐19 pandemic significantly affected the global population, particularly those with chronic conditions such as hypertension and diabetes, where lifestyle changes could have disrupted disease management. This study analyzes the association between reduced physical activity (PA) and variations in physical parameters, treatment adherence, and health‐related quality of life (HRQoL). Methods A pre‐post study design was conducted from March 2019 to June 2021 in a Basic Health Area of central Spain. Clinical parameters (blood pressure, BMI, and HbA1c), PA levels, treatment adherence, and HRQoL (SF‐12) were measured in 152 patients before and after the lockdown. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare mean differences across PA categories (quartiles), controlling for age and sex. Results One year after the start of the lockdown, participants showed an increase in systolic blood pressure ( p = 0.030) and significant decreases in PA ( p = 0.004), treatment adherence ( p < 0.001), and the mental component of HRQoL ( p < 0.001). ANCOVA results indicated that the effect size (partial eta squared, η p 2 ) for differences in treatment adherence was 0.260, while for mental HRQoL, it was 0.040, suggesting a more moderate clinical relevance for the latter. Subjects in the lowest physical activity category exhibited the poorest outcomes after adjusting for age and sex: Mental HRQoL difference: mean = −8.13 (95% CI: −11.11 to −5.15). Adherence difference: mean = −4.80 (95% CI: −5.94 to −3.65). In contrast, participants with high PA demonstrated an improvement in treatment adherence (mean = 1.69; 95% CI: 0.31–3.06). Conclusions Negative consequences of the pandemic remain observable 1 year after the lockdown in this population. Higher levels of physical activity are associated with mitigating some of these effects. However, due to the study design, caution is required when making direct causal interpretations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lorenzo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: