The Influence of Chronotype and Grit on Lifestyle and Physical Activity

Background:  The chronotype of a person refers to an individual's natural sleep-wake cycle and whether that individual prefers morning or evening activities, and grit is an individual's perseverance and passion for long-term goals.Aim: The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between grit, chronotype, physical activity, and leading a healthy lifestyle in college-age students.Methods:  Health and fitness data (i.e., chronotype, grit, lifestyle assessment score, and daily steps) from 431 first-semester university students at a private college were collected and analyzed. Results: This study found that grit and chronotype both have significant correlations with living a healthy lifestyle and with physical activity. Grit more accurately predicts a person's lifestyle (β = -13.712, r = 0.39, p < 0.0001) while chronotype more accurately predicts the physical activity, or steps, of a person (β = 66.48, r = .19, p = .0001). Chronotype can also accurately predict the grit of a person (r = .25, p < .0001), and it was found that morning people tend to have more grit.Conclusions:  This study concluded that grit, chronotype, steps, and a healthy lifestyle are all significantly correlated with each other. Knowing the relationship between endogenous chronotype, grit, and living a physically active and healthy lifestyle can help inform policy decisions related to the goal of strengthening an institution's inclusive and healthy academic community

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on College Student’s Stress and Physical Activity Levels

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic adversely disrupted university student educational experiences worldwide, with consequences that included increased stress levels and unhealthy sedentary behavior. Aim: This study aimed to quantify the degree of impact that COVID-19 had on the levels of physical activity and stress of university students by utilizing wearable fitness tracker data and standard stress survey instrument scores before and during the pandemic. Methods: We collected Fitbit heart rate and physical activity data, and the results of a modified Social Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS) stress survey from 2,987 university students during the Fall 2019 (residential instruction; before COVID-19) and Fall 2020 (hybrid instruction; during COVID-19) semesters. Results: We found indicators of increased sedentary behavior during the pandemic. There was a significant decrease in both the levels of physical activity as measured by mean daily step count (↓636 steps/day; p = 1.04 · 10-9) and minutes spent in various heart rate zones (↓58 minutes/week; p = 2.20 · 10-16). We also found an increase in stressors during the pandemic, primarily from an increase in the number of students who experienced the “death of a close family member” (38.8%), with the number even higher for the population of students who opted to stay home and attend classes virtually (41.4%). Conclusions: This study quantifies the decrease in levels of physical activity and notes an increase in the number of students who experienced the death of a close family member, a known stressor, during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings allow for more informed student-health-focused interventions related to the COVID-19 pandemic disruptions experienced by academic communities worldwide

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health