Healthy and Sustainable Diets in Times of Crisis: A Longitudinal, Mixed-Methods Study of Risk Factors and Coping Mechanisms in UK Parents During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript 《Healthy and sustainable diets in times of crisis: a longitudinal, mixed method study of risk factors and coping mechanisms in UK parents during the COVID-19 pandemic》 aims to explore how UK parents with minor children maintain or change healthy and sustainable dietary behaviours in stressful environments during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis scenario, using the COM-B behavioural model to analyse factors influencing behavioural change and integrating relevant data to comprehensively reveal the risk factor, protective factor and coping mechanism relationships. However, there are still several areas for further improvement:

• The innovativeness and main contributions of the manuscript are not well represented, and it is suggested that a description of the main contributions or innovations of the manuscript be added to the Introduction section of Chapter One.
• Section 2.1.1, line 102 of the manuscript only mentions that the sample is stratified according to gender and socio-economic status, but does not specify how exactly socio-economic status is defined and classified, which may lead to some questioning of the scientific nature of the sample selection, and it is recommended that additional clarification be provided.
• The current manuscript uses the COM-B model, but there is less discussion of the key definitions and structure of the model. It is suggested that the structural illustration of the model be presented in more depth in Chapter 2, and that the discussion section illustrate the complementary and theoretical implications of this study for behavioural models in crisis situations.
• This study used the Integrated Health and Sustainability Score (ISS) construct Although literature was cited, details were scattered throughout the supplemental material, and it is recommended that brief descriptions, formulas, or schematic tables be added to the body of the text to improve the readability of the manuscript.
• Section 2.4.1, line 395 of the manuscript, which uses correlation analysis, does not adequately discuss the limitations of this method in establishing causality, leading to the possibility that the reader may misinterpret the results, and suggests additional clarification.
• In section 4, line 755 of the manuscript, the results of the study were not analysed in comparison with other studies, which is less persuasive, and it is recommended that the authors add a comparative analysis with other relevant studies, which in turn highlights the innovations of this study.
• Some of the core references in the manuscript are old or ambiguous, for example, the literature on “emotional eating” still cites data from around 2013, and it is recommended that relevant studies from recent years be added.
• The charts in the manuscript (e.g., Figure 2, Figure 4, Figure 6, etc.) suffer from a lack of clarity, low image resolution, small text and blurred labelling, and it is recommended that the clarity of the charts be improved. Meanwhile, some of the contents are incompletely displayed, such as Table 1 and Figure 8, and it is recommended to adjust the layout to improve the reader's accurate understanding and analysis of the data.
• There is an error in the chapter numbering of the manuscript, e.g. on page 8, Chapter II, line 333, jumps directly from 2.2.1 to 2.4, and it is recommended that this be double-checked and corrected.

Author Response

The manuscript 《Healthy and sustainable diets in times of crisis: a longitudinal, mixed method study of risk factors and coping mechanisms in UK parents during the COVID-19 pandemic》 aims to explore how UK parents with minor children maintain or change healthy and sustainable dietary behaviours in stressful environments during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis scenario, using the COM-B behavioural model to analyse factors influencing behavioural change and integrating relevant data to comprehensively reveal the risk factor, protective factor and coping mechanism relationships. However, there are still several areas for further improvement:

• The innovativeness and main contributions of the manuscript are not well represented, and it is suggested that a description of the main contributions or innovations of the manuscript be added to the Introduction section of Chapter One.

We have revised the Introduction to clearly articulate the innovative aspects and main contributions of the study. Specifically, we have highlighted the novelty of using a longitudinal, mixed-methods approach that combines quantitative and qualitative data to examine both risk and protective factors related to dietary change during a crisis. We also now emphasize the use of the COM-B model in a crisis context, and the development of an Integrated Health and Sustainability Score to evaluate dietary outcomes. This addition can be found in the final paragraph of the Introduction.

• Section 2.1.1, line 102 of the manuscript only mentions that the sample is stratified according to gender and socio-economic status, but does not specify how exactly socio-economic status is defined and classified, which may lead to some questioning of the scientific nature of the sample selection, and it is recommended that additional clarification be provided.

The sample was stratified by self-reported sex (male, female). Socio-economic status was obtained using Prolific’s demographic screening. We have now added a detailed explanation to the Methods section (2.1.1) describing how SES was determined. Specifically, participants were recruited through Prolific, which captures pre-screening demographic information, including household income. We matched this pre-screening data to our survey responses and classified participants into low and high income groups based on thresholds derived from national income bands reported in the UK Census. This process has now been clarified in the methods section of the manuscript.

• The current manuscript uses the COM-B model, but there is less discussion of the key definitions and structure of the model. It is suggested that the structural illustration of the model be presented in more depth in Chapter 2.

We have reviewed the section and ensured that we have included a brief explanation of the COM-B model’s components, capability, opportunity, and motivation, and how these relate to behaviour. In addition, we provide a rationale for its use in this study and describe how it informed the qualitative analysis. This is included in the introduction, at the top of page 3 – following the first mention of the COM-B framework.

• Add to the discussion section to illustrate the complementary and theoretical implications of this study for behavioural models in crisis situations.

We have added a brief paragraph to the discussion about the theoretical contributions of the paper. This is placed at the end of the discussion, before the limitations section.

• This study used the Integrated Health and Sustainability Score (ISS) construct Although literature was cited, details were scattered throughout the supplemental material, and it is recommended that brief descriptions, formulas, or schematic tables be added to the body of the text to improve the readability of the manuscript.

We agree that the Integrated Health and Sustainability Score (ISS) is an important part of the study and should be clearly understood by readers. In response, we have added to Section 2.13 that outlines the logic of the score, its components, and its relevance to the research aims. To improve readability, we now refer more directly to Supplementary Table 2, where the scoring criteria and food groupings are presented in full. While constrained by the manuscript word limit, we have aimed to ensure that the main text provides sufficient conceptual clarity and context for interpreting the ISS.

• Section 2.4.1, line 395 of the manuscript, which uses correlation analysis, does not adequately discuss the limitations of this method in establishing causality, leading to the possibility that the reader may misinterpret the results, and suggests additional clarification.

We have added in more narrative about the limitations of correlation analysis. We highlight that whilst relationships were identified between stress, coping mechanisms, and dietary behaviour, these are associative and cannot be interpreted as causal. We also note that unmeasured confounding factors may influence these relationships and highlight the value of future longitudinal or experimental designs to investigate causal pathways. This is included in the penultimate paragraph of the discussion.

• In section 4, line 755 of the manuscript, the results of the study were not analysed in comparison with other studies, which is less persuasive, and it is recommended that the authors add a comparative analysis with other relevant studies, which in turn highlights the innovations of this study.

Upon review, we believe that the Discussion section does go beyond a repetition of the results and provides a meaningful interpretation of the findings in relation to existing literature. Specifically, we have referenced relevant studies throughout the discussion (e.g., on stress, emotional eating, and coping mechanisms during COVID-19), and highlighted how our study builds on and extends this body of work. We draw attention to our use of a longitudinal mixed-methods approach, the application of the COM-B model in a crisis context, and the development of the Integrated Health and Sustainability Score as novel contributions.

• Some of the core references in the manuscript are old or ambiguous, for example, the literature on “emotional eating” still cites data from around 2013, and it is recommended that relevant studies from recent years be added.

The references currently included, such as those on emotional eating (e.g. Macht, 2008; van Strien, 2013), were selected based on their continued relevance, conceptual clarity, and influence in the field. These remain widely cited and foundational to understanding emotional eating as a psychological construct. We have re-reviewed the paper, and argue that there are several relevant, and recent studies included (for example, see Cecchetto et al, 2021). Saying that, we have added a couple of more recent studies complement the foundational work and ensure that the manuscript reflects both theoretical grounding and current empirical insights (see additions in the introduction and discussion).

• The charts in the manuscript (e.g., Figure 2, Figure 4, Figure 6, etc.) suffer from a lack of clarity, low image resolution, small text and blurred labelling, and it is recommended that the clarity of the charts be improved.

We have updated the figures in text, to improve their resolution and readability.

• Meanwhile, some of the contents are incompletely displayed, such as Table 1 and Figure 8, and it is recommended to adjust the layout to improve the reader's accurate understanding and analysis of the data.

We have adjusted the format of the figures in text, to ensure that they are all displayed fully. 

• There is an error in the chapter numbering of the manuscript, e.g. on page 8, Chapter II, line 333, jumps directly from 2.2.1 to 2.4, and it is recommended that this be double-checked and corrected.

Thank you for spotting this. The numbering in section 2 has been updated.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a longitudinal mixed-methods study examining how the COVID-19 pandemic affected dietary behaviors and coping strategies among parents in the UK. Grounded in the COM-B theoretical framework, the study combines two online surveys with follow-up focus groups to explore both risk and protective factors influencing healthy and sustainable food choices during a time of crisis. One of the paper’s most valuable contributions is its integrated analysis of psychological stress, motivation, food security, and environmental sustainability—offering practical insights that could inform future interventions during emergencies.

Overall, the manuscript is conceptually strong and addresses a highly relevant and timely topic. It effectively brings together public health nutrition, psychological well-being, and sustainability in a well-structured and insightful way. The use of the COM-B model adds theoretical depth, while the combination of qualitative and quantitative data gives a richer, more comprehensive understanding of the subject. The longitudinal design is a particular strength and adds originality, especially since many similar studies take a cross-sectional approach.

Strengths:

• The study uses a solid and innovative methodology, effectively combining surveys with focus groups.

• The COM-B framework is well-integrated and clearly informs the design and analysis.

• The development of the Integrated Sustainability Score (ISS) is thoughtful and grounded in validated sources.

Weaknesses:

• The study does not clearly state a priori hypotheses, which weakens its confirmatory power.

• The lack of control or comparison groups (e.g., non-parents or individuals not affected by food insecurity) limits the generalizability of the findings.

• While the sample is stratified by gender and socioeconomic status, more detailed statistical controls or interaction analyses (e.g., gender × SES) would strengthen the findings.

• There is limited discussion of potential confounding factors, such as pre-existing health conditions or regional differences in lockdown policies.

Author Response

Weaknesses:

• The study does not clearly state a priori hypotheses, which weakens its confirmatory power.

This study was designed as an exploratory mixed-methods investigation, aiming to understand how UK parents navigated dietary risks and coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic. While we did not specify formal a priori hypotheses in the form of confirmatory statistical testing, our research was guided by structured research questions and a theoretical framework (COM-B) that informed both the design and analysis. These provided a clear analytic structure, particularly for the integration of qualitative and quantitative findings across multiple time points. An additional paragraph was added to the methods section (paragraph 2) to make this more explicit.

• The lack of control or comparison groups (e.g., non-parents or individuals not affected by food insecurity) limits the generalizability of the findings.

We acknowledge that the absence of a control or comparison group, such as non-parents, limits the generalizability of our findings. However, the study was intentionally designed to focus on UK parents, a group disproportionately affected by pandemic-related stress, caregiving responsibilities, and disruptions to food access. This targeted approach enabled us to examine in-depth the unique risks and coping mechanisms within this population. We have now added text to the Discussion to acknowledge this limitation, and to clarify that while findings may not be broadly generalizable, they offer important transferable insights for future research and policy aimed at similarly vulnerable groups. This addition can be found in the limitations section of the discussion.

• While the sample is stratified by gender and socioeconomic status, more detailed statistical controls or interaction analyses (e.g., gender × SES) would strengthen the findings.

While we agree that including interaction analyses or statistical controls can be valuable in some study designs, the aim of this mixed-methods study was exploratory rather than confirmatory, and as such, we did not include formal control variables or interaction terms in our statistical analyses. However, we did conduct stratified analyses to explore differences in responses by gender, socioeconomic status (SES), and geographical location, and these are described in the methods section, and reported in the results section. These subgroup comparisons provided meaningful insights into differential experiences of risk and coping during the pandemic amongst parents, which were then further explored and triangulated through qualitative data collection and analysis.

• There is limited discussion of potential confounding factors, such as pre-existing health conditions or regional differences in lockdown policies.

As the lack of causal relationships is already highlighted in the discussion (copied below), and we clearly note the use of correlations where relevant throughout the paper, we have made no further changes. 

"These correlations collectively offer insights into the intricate relationships between psychosocial factors, stress, and dietary behaviors. This supports previous research which highlighted that poor mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with an increase in unhealthy eating habits [58]. While the inability to establish causal relationships underscores the need for caution, these findings provide a foundation for further investigations that could unveil the complex interdependencies shaping individuals' health and sustainability choices during times of crisis."

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting research article with adequate novelty. Some points should be addressed.

• In the 1st paragraph of the Introduction section, the authors should add a bit more information concerning the beneficial effects of a health diet in human.
• In the 2nd paragraph of the Introduction section, the authors should add as example some characteristic healthy diets such as Mediterranean diet, etc.
• The paragraph in lines 104-120 could be moved before the paragraph in lines 93-103.
• There is substantial evidence that in the first months of Covid-lockdown, most peoples adopted a healthier lifestyle, including healthier diet and increased physical activity. However, after the first months of Covid-lockdown this phenomenon was reversed. This issue should be added in the introduction section.
• In the Materials an Methods section, the authors should be more clear whether the collected data were self-reported or not (lines 143-149).
• The size of letters in Figure 2 should be increased.
• The resolution of Figures 3 and 5 should be improved.
• The size of letters in Figure 4 should be increased.
• Figures 6 and 7 are very complex and note easily readable. The size of letters should be increased.
• Again Figure 8 is very complex and note easily readable, while a part of it is missing.
• Again, the size of the letters below the bar in Figure 8 should be increased.
• In lines 730-734, the authors repete the aim of their study. This repetition should be avoided by reporting the authors onle the basic results of their study.
• The Discussion section is mainly a repetition of the results. More comparison analysis with previous relevant studies is recommended.
• Concerning the limitation of the study, the authors should emphasize that the self-reported data may lead to recall bias.
• In the Conclusion section, the authors should provide their opinion concerning what future studies should be performed based on their results.

Author Response

This is an interesting research article with adequate novelty. Some points should be addressed.

• In the 1st paragraph of the Introduction section, the authors should add a bit more information concerning the beneficial effects of a health diet in human.

We have added a sentence to expand on the beneficial impacts of a healthy diet on health: ‘in preventing chronic diseases like obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, and in promoting mental health, quality of life and wellbeing’.

• In the 2nd paragraph of the Introduction section, the authors should add as example some characteristic healthy diets such as Mediterranean diet, etc.

We have already provided an overview of what a heathy diet consists of, in paragraph 1: ‘A healthy diet is characterized by a balance of essential nutrients, including a variety of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and lean proteins, while limiting processed foods, added sugars, and unhealthy fats; such diets are fundamental in preventing chronic diseases like obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.’

• The paragraph in lines 104-120 could be moved before the paragraph in lines 93-103.

Due to other changes made in the paper following reviewer comments, this section has now been adjusted, with paragraphs moved/ adjusted accordingly.

• There is substantial evidence that in the first months of Covid-lockdown, most peoples adopted a healthier lifestyle, including healthier diet and increased physical activity. However, after the first months of Covid-lockdown this phenomenon was reversed. This issue should be added in the introduction section.

We have added a brief reference in the Introduction acknowledging the early pandemic trend toward healthier behaviours, such as improved diets and increased physical activity, and the subsequent reversal over time. This contextualises our focus on longitudinal patterns and the role of coping strategies during later stages of the pandemic.

• In the Materials an Methods section, the authors should be more clear whether the collected data were self-reported or not (lines 143-149).

We confirm that all quantitative and qualitative data collected in this study were self-reported by participants. We have now clarified this in the Materials and Methods section by stating’ All data collected were self-reported.’

• The size of letters in Figure 2 should be increased. The resolution of Figures 3 and 5 should be improved. The size of letters in Figure 4 should be increased. Figures 6 and 7 are very complex and note easily readable. The size of letters should be increased. Again Figure 8 is very complex and note easily readable, while a part of it is missing. Again, the size of the letters below the bar in Figure 8 should be increased.

We have updated the figures in text, to improve their resolution and readability. We have also adjusted the format of the figures in text, to ensure that they are all displayed fully. 

• In lines 730-734, the authors repeat the aim of their study. This repetition should be avoided by reporting the authors only the basic results of their study.

Considering the length and complexity of the research and paper, we wanted to ensure that the reader was aware of the aim, and could consider it when reading the discussion. We have not removed this from the discussion, as we think it improves comprehension and readability.

• The Discussion section is mainly a repetition of the results. More comparison analysis with previous relevant studies is recommended.

While we aimed to interpret the findings in light of relevant literature throughout the Discussion, we have now added a brief section to further contextualise our results within the broader evidence base on dietary behaviour and coping during the COVID-19 pandemic.

• Concerning the limitation of the study, the authors should emphasize that the self-reported data may lead to recall bias.

We acknowledge that the use of self-reported data may introduce the potential for recall bias, particularly when participants were asked to reflect on behaviours during different stages of the pandemic. However, this is already noted in the discussion: ‘Although it is possible that long recall periods could introduce recall bias, affecting the accuracy of participants' responses and perceptions of their dietary habits and coping strategies, there is research to the contrary with a longer period potentially resulting in more information recalled, and lower bias in that information’ – and we feel like is adequate for the purposes of considering potential limitations.

• In the Conclusion section, the authors should provide their opinion concerning what future studies should be performed based on their results.

We have made some suggestions for future studies within the broader discussion, highlighting how some of the limitations of this research could be explored/ added to with additional research. However, we have also added a brief section to the conclusion that highlights were some additional research could be considered.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Other research results added to the fourth section of the manuscript around line 810 are compared, but they are rather vague. It is recommended to supplement them with specific data comparisons.

Author Response

• The innovativeness and main contributions of the manuscript are not well represented, and it is suggested that a description of the main contributions or innovations of the manuscript be added to the Introduction section of Chapter One.

We have revised the Introduction to clearly articulate the innovative aspects and main contributions of the study. Specifically, we have highlighted the novelty of using a longitudinal, mixed-methods approach that combines quantitative and qualitative data to examine both risk and protective factors related to dietary change during a crisis. We also now emphasize the use of the COM-B model in a crisis context, and the development of an Integrated Health and Sustainability Score to evaluate dietary outcomes. This addition can be found in the final paragraph of the Introduction.

• Section 2.1.1, line 102 of the manuscript only mentions that the sample is stratified according to gender and socio-economic status, but does not specify how exactly socio-economic status is defined and classified, which may lead to some questioning of the scientific nature of the sample selection, and it is recommended that additional clarification be provided.

The sample was stratified by self-reported sex (male, female). Socio-economic status was obtained using Prolific’s demographic screening. We have now added a detailed explanation to the Methods section (2.1.1) describing how SES was determined. Specifically, we used Prolific Academic’s demographic screening to provide a balanced sample, with participants recruited based on sex and self-reported socioeconomic groups (in Prolific participants select the ladder rung from 1 to 10 which best represents their socioeconomic status, from the best off to the worst off in society). This process has now been clarified in the methods section of the manuscript.

• The current manuscript uses the COM-B model, but there is less discussion of the key definitions and structure of the model. It is suggested that the structural illustration of the model be presented in more depth in Chapter 2.

We have reviewed the section and ensured that we have included a brief explanation of the COM-B model’s components, capability, opportunity, and motivation, and how these relate to behaviour. In addition, we provide a rationale for its use in this study and describe how it informed the qualitative analysis. This is included in the introduction, at the top of page 3 – following the first mention of the COM-B framework.

• Add to the discussion section to illustrate the complementary and theoretical implications of this study for behavioural models in crisis situations.

We have added a brief paragraph to the discussion about the theoretical contributions of the paper. This is placed at the end of the discussion, before the limitations section.

• This study used the Integrated Health and Sustainability Score (ISS) construct Although literature was cited, details were scattered throughout the supplemental material, and it is recommended that brief descriptions, formulas, or schematic tables be added to the body of the text to improve the readability of the manuscript.

We agree that the Integrated Health and Sustainability Score (ISS) is an important part of the study and should be clearly understood by readers. In response, we have added to Section 2.13 that outlines the logic of the score, its components, and its relevance to the research aims. To improve readability, we now refer more directly to Supplementary Table 2, where the scoring criteria and food groupings are presented in full. While constrained by the manuscript word limit, we have aimed to ensure that the main text provides sufficient conceptual clarity and context for interpreting the ISS.

• Section 2.4.1, line 395 of the manuscript, which uses correlation analysis, does not adequately discuss the limitations of this method in establishing causality, leading to the possibility that the reader may misinterpret the results, and suggests additional clarification.

We have added in more narrative about the limitations of correlation analysis. We highlight that relationships identified through correlation analysis are associative and cannot be interpreted as causal. We also note that unmeasured confounding factors may influence these relationships and highlight the value of future longitudinal or experimental designs to investigate causal pathways. This is included in the penultimate paragraph of the discussion.

• In section 4, line 755 of the manuscript, the results of the study were not analysed in comparison with other studies, which is less persuasive, and it is recommended that the authors add a comparative analysis with other relevant studies, which in turn highlights the innovations of this study.

Upon review, we believe that the Discussion section does go beyond a repetition of the results and provides a meaningful interpretation of the findings in relation to existing literature. Specifically, we have referenced relevant studies throughout the discussion (e.g., on stress, emotional eating, and coping mechanisms during COVID-19), and highlighted how our study builds on and extends this body of work. We draw attention to our use of a longitudinal mixed-methods approach, the application of the COM-B model in a crisis context, and the development of the Integrated Health and Sustainability Score as novel contributions.

• Some of the core references in the manuscript are old or ambiguous, for example, the literature on “emotional eating” still cites data from around 2013, and it is recommended that relevant studies from recent years be added.

The references currently included, such as those on emotional eating (e.g. Macht, 2008; van Strien, 2013), were selected based on their continued relevance, conceptual clarity, and influence in the field. These remain widely cited and foundational to understanding emotional eating as a psychological construct. We have re-reviewed the paper, and argue that there are several relevant, and recent studies included (for example, see Cecchetto et al, 2021). However, we have added more recent studies to complement the foundational work and ensure that the manuscript reflects both theoretical grounding and current empirical insights (see additions in the introduction and discussion).

• The charts in the manuscript (e.g., Figure 2, Figure 4, Figure 6, etc.) suffer from a lack of clarity, low image resolution, small text and blurred labelling, and it is recommended that the clarity of the charts be improved.

Where possible we have updated and/or resized the figures in text, to improve their resolution and readability, including fully revising Figure 1. Some of the figures have not been changed, either because they are already high reolution or because they come directly from focus groups and therefore are presented as they were during the focus groups (e.g. the example trajectory drawn by a participant during the focus group). Some additional text has been added to captions to make this clear.

• Meanwhile, some of the contents are incompletely displayed, such as Table 1 and Figure 8, and it is recommended to adjust the layout to improve the reader's accurate understanding and analysis of the data.

We have adjusted the format of the figures in text, to ensure that they are all displayed fully. 

• There is an error in the chapter numbering of the manuscript, e.g. on page 8, Chapter II, line 333, jumps directly from 2.2.1 to 2.4, and it is recommended that this be double-checked and corrected.

Thank you for spotting this. The numbering in section 2 has been updated.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have significantly improved their manuscript.

Author Response

This is an interesting research article with adequate novelty. Some points should be addressed.

• In the 1st paragraph of the Introduction section, the authors should add a bit more information concerning the beneficial effects of a health diet in human.

We have added a sentence to expand on the beneficial impacts of a healthy diet on health: ‘in preventing chronic diseases like obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, and in promoting mental health, quality of life and wellbeing’.

• In the 2nd paragraph of the Introduction section, the authors should add as example some characteristic healthy diets such as Mediterranean diet, etc.

We have already provided an overview of what a heathy diet consists of, in paragraph 1: ‘A healthy diet is characterized by a balance of essential nutrients, including a variety of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and lean proteins, while limiting processed foods, added sugars, and unhealthy fats; such diets are fundamental in preventing chronic diseases like obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.’

• The paragraph in lines 104-120 could be moved before the paragraph in lines 93-103.

Due to other changes made in the paper following reviewer comments, this section has now been adjusted, with paragraphs moved/ adjusted accordingly.

• There is substantial evidence that in the first months of Covid-lockdown, most peoples adopted a healthier lifestyle, including healthier diet and increased physical activity. However, after the first months of Covid-lockdown this phenomenon was reversed. This issue should be added in the introduction section.

We have added a brief reference in the Introduction acknowledging the early pandemic trend toward healthier behaviours, such as improved diets and increased physical activity, and the subsequent reversal over time. This contextualises our focus on longitudinal patterns and the role of coping strategies during later stages of the pandemic.

• In the Materials an Methods section, the authors should be more clear whether the collected data were self-reported or not (lines 143-149).

We confirm that all quantitative and qualitative data collected in this study were self-reported by participants. We have now clarified this in the Materials and Methods section by stating’ All data collected were self-reported.’

• The size of letters in Figure 2 should be increased. The resolution of Figures 3 and 5 should be improved. The size of letters in Figure 4 should be increased. Figures 6 and 7 are very complex and note easily readable. The size of letters should be increased. Again Figure 8 is very complex and note easily readable, while a part of it is missing. Again, the size of the letters below the bar in Figure 8 should be increased.

We have updated the figures in text, to improve their resolution and readability. We have also adjusted the format of the figures in text, to ensure that they are all displayed fully. 

• In lines 730-734, the authors repeat the aim of their study. This repetition should be avoided by reporting the authors only the basic results of their study.

Considering the length and complexity of the research and paper, we wanted to ensure that the reader was aware of the aim, and could consider it when reading the discussion. We have not removed this from the discussion, as we think it improves comprehension and readability.

• The Discussion section is mainly a repetition of the results. More comparison analysis with previous relevant studies is recommended.

While we aimed to interpret the findings in light of relevant literature throughout the Discussion, we have now added a brief section to further contextualise our results within the broader evidence base on dietary behaviour and coping during the COVID-19 pandemic.

• Concerning the limitation of the study, the authors should emphasize that the self-reported data may lead to recall bias.

We acknowledge that the use of self-reported data may introduce the potential for recall bias, particularly when participants were asked to reflect on behaviours during different stages of the pandemic. However, this is already noted in the discussion: ‘Although it is possible that long recall periods could introduce recall bias, affecting the accuracy of participants' responses and perceptions of their dietary habits and coping strategies, there is research to the contrary with a longer period potentially resulting in more information recalled, and lower bias in that information’.

• In the Conclusion section, the authors should provide their opinion concerning what future studies should be performed based on their results.

We have made some suggestions for future studies within the discussion, highlighting how some of the limitations of this research could be explored/ added to with additional research, and have added a brief section to the conclusion that highlights were some additional research could be considered.

We have also made some minor proofreading changes to improve the readability of the text throughout.