Retrospective Analysis of the Psychological Predictors of Public Health Support in Bulgarians at the Beginning of the Coronavirus Pandemic.

The earliest critical context of the pandemic, preceding the first real epidemiological wave of contagion in Bulgaria, was examined using a socio-affective perspective. A retrospective and agnostic analytical approach was adopted. Our goal was to identify traits and trends that explain public health support (PHS) of Bulgarians during the first two months of the declared state of emergency. We investigated a set of variables with a unified method within an international scientific network named the International Collaboration on Social & Moral Psychology of COVID-19 (ICSMP) in April and May 2020. A total of 733 Bulgarians participated in the study (67.3% females), with an average age of 31.8 years (SD = 11.66). Conspiracy Theories Beliefs were a significant predictor of lower PHS. Psychological Well-Being was significantly associated with Physical Contact and Anti-Corona Policy Support. Physical Contact was significantly predicted by fewer Conspiracy Theories Beliefs, higher Collective Narcissism, Open-mindedness, higher Trait Self-Control, Moral Identity, Risk Perception and Psychological Well-Being. Physical Hygiene compliance was predicted by fewer Conspiracy Theories Beliefs, Collective Narcissism, Morality-as-Cooperation, Moral Identity and Psychological Well-Being. The results revealed two polar trends of support and non-support of public health policies. The contribution of this study is in providing evidence for the affective polarization and phenomenology of (non)precarity during the outbreak of the pandemic.

Green Space for Mental Health in the COVID-19 Era: A Pathway Analysis in Residential Green Space Users

Residential green space is among the most accessible types of urban green spaces and may help maintain mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it is insufficiently understood how residents use residential green space for exercise during the epidemic. The pathways between residential green space and mental health also merit further exploration. Therefore, we conducted an online study among Chinese residents in December 2021 to capture data on engagement with urban green space for green exercise, the frequency of green exercise, perceived pollution in green space, perceptions of residential green space, social cohesion, depression, and anxiety. Among the 1208 respondents who engaged in green exercise last month, 967 (80%) reported that green exercise primarily occurred in residential neighborhoods. The rest (20%) reported that green exercise occurred in more distant urban green spaces. The most common reasons that respondents sought green exercise in urban green spaces were better air and environmental qualities. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was then employed to explore the pathways between the perceived greenness of residential neighborhoods and mental health among respondents who used residential green space for exercise. The final model suggested that residential green space was negatively associated with anxiety (β= −0.30, p = 0.001) and depression (β= −0.33, p < 0.001), mainly through indirect pathways. Perceived pollution and social cohesion were the two mediators that contributed to most of the indirect effects. Perceived pollution was also indirectly associated with green exercise through less social cohesion (β= −0.04, p = 0.010). These findings suggest a potential framework to understand the mental health benefits of residential green space and its accompanying pathways during the COVID-19 era.

Assessing the quality of evidence in studies estimating prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factors: The QoE-SPEO approach applied in the systematic reviews from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related burden of disease and Injury.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) have produced the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates). For these, systematic reviews of studies estimating the prevalence of exposure to selected occupational risk factors have been conducted to provide input data for estimations of the number of exposed workers. A critical part of systematic review methodology is to assess the quality of evidence across studies. In this article, we present the approach applied in these WHO/ILO systematic reviews for performing such assessments on studies of prevalence of exposure. It is called the Quality of Evidence in Studies estimating Prevalence of Exposure to Occupational risk factors (QoE-SPEO) approach. We describe QoE-SPEO's development to date, demonstrate its feasibility reporting results from pilot testing and case studies, note its strengths and limitations, and suggest how QoE-SPEO should be tested and developed further. METHODS: Following a comprehensive literature review, and using expert opinion, selected existing quality of evidence assessment approaches used in environmental and occupational health were reviewed and analysed for their relevance to prevalence studies. Relevant steps and components from the existing approaches were adopted or adapted for QoE-SPEO. New steps and components were developed. We elicited feedback from other systematic review methodologists and exposure scientists and reached consensus on the QoE-SPEO approach. Ten individual experts pilot-tested QoE-SPEO. To assess inter-rater agreement, we counted ratings of expected (actual and non-spurious) heterogeneity and quality of evidence and calculated a raw measure of agreement (Pi) between individual raters and rater teams for the downgrade domains. Pi ranged between 0.00 (no two pilot testers selected the same rating) and 1.00 (all pilot testers selected the same rating). Case studies were conducted of experiences of QoE-SPEO's use in two WHO/ILO systematic reviews. RESULTS: We found no existing quality of evidence assessment approach for occupational exposure prevalence studies. We identified three relevant, existing approaches for environmental and occupational health studies of the effect of exposures. Assessments using QoE-SPEO comprise three steps: (1) judge the level of expected heterogeneity (defined as non-spurious variability that can be expected in exposure prevalence, within or between individual persons, because exposure may change over space and/or time), (2) assess downgrade domains, and (3) reach a final rating on the quality of evidence. Assessments are conducted using the same five downgrade domains as the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach: (a) risk of bias, (b) indirectness, (c) inconsistency, (d) imprecision, and (e) publication bias. For downgrade domains (c) and (d), the assessment varies depending on the level of expected heterogeneity. There are no upgrade domains. The QoE-SPEO's ratings are "very low", "low", "moderate", and "high". To arrive at a final decision on the overall quality of evidence, the assessor starts at "high" quality of evidence and for each domain downgrades by one or two levels for serious concerns or very serious concerns, respectively. In pilot tests, there was reasonable agreement in ratings for expected heterogeneity; 70% of raters selected the same rating. Inter-rater agreement ranged considerably between downgrade domains, both for individual rater pairs (range Pi: 0.36-1.00) and rater teams (0.20-1.00). Sparse data prevented rigorous assessment of inter-rater agreement in quality of evidence ratings. CONCLUSIONS: We present QoE-SPEO as an approach for assessing quality of evidence in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. It has been developed to its current version (as presented here), has undergone pilot testing, and was applied in the systematic reviews for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. While the approach requires further testing and development, it makes steps towards filling an identified gap, and progress made so far can be used to inform future work in this area.

University Students' Self-Rated Health in Relation to Perceived Acoustic Environment during the COVID-19 Home Quarantine.

BACKGROUND: Online education became mandatory for many students during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and blurred the distinction between settings where processes of stress and restoration used to take place. The lockdown also likely changed perceptions of the indoor acoustic environment (i.e., soundscape) and raised its importance. In the present study, we seek to understand how indoor soundscape related to university students' self-rated health in Bulgaria around the time that the country was under a state of emergency declaration caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Between 17 May and 10 June 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional online survey among 323 students (median age 21 years; 31% male) from two universities in the city of Plovdiv, Bulgaria. Self-rated health (SRH) was measured with a single-item. Participants were asked how frequently they heard different types of sounds while at home and how pleasant they considered each of those sounds to be. Restorative quality of the home (the "being away" dimension of the Perceived Restorativeness Scale) was measured with a single-item. A priori confounders and effect modifiers included sociodemographics, house-related characteristics, general sensitivity to environmental influences, and mental health. Our analysis strategy involved sequential exploratory factor analysis (EFA), multivariate linear and ordinal regressions, effect modification tests, and structural equation modeling (SEM). RESULTS: EFA supported grouping perceived sounds into three distinct factors-mechanical, human, and nature sounds. Regression analyses revealed that greater exposure to mechanical sounds was consistently associated with worse SRH, whereas no significant associations were found for human and nature sounds. In SEM, exposure to mechanical sounds related to lower restorative quality of the home, and then to poorer SRH, whereas nature sounds correlated with higher restorative quality, and in turn with better SRH. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest a role of positive indoor soundscape and restorative quality for promoting self-rated health in times of social distancing.

Does greenery experienced indoors and outdoors provide an escape and support mental health during the COVID-19 quarantine?

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly changed people's ability to recreate in public green spaces, which is likely to exacerbate the psychological impacts of the pandemic. In the current study, we seek to understand whether greenery can support mental health even with insufficient outdoor exposure in times of physical isolation from the outdoor environment. METHODS: Between 17 May and 10 June, 2020, we conducted an online survey among 323 students (21.99 ± 3.10 years; 31% male) in health-related programs from two universities in the city of Plovdiv, Bulgaria. Severities of depressive and anxiety symptoms over the past two weeks were measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale. We employed two self-reported measures of greenery experienced indoors (number of houseplants in the home and proportion of exterior greenery visible from inside the home) and two measures of greenery experienced outdoors (presence/absence of a domestic garden and availability of neighborhood greenery). Restorative quality of the home (the "being away" dimension of the Perceived Restorativeness Scale; PRS) and the neighborhood (the "being away" and "fascination" dimensions of the PRS), engagement with outdoor greenery (frequency of different types of interaction) and perceived social support were treated as mediators. Associations between greenery and mental health were tested using generalized linear regression and logistic regression. Structural equation modelling (SEM) techniques were used to test the theoretically-indicated relations among the variables. RESULTS: Clinically-meaningful symptoms of moderate depression and anxiety were reported by approximately 33% and 20% of the students, respectively. The relative abundance of greenery visible from the home or in the neighborhood was associated with reduced depressive/anxiety symptoms and lower depression/anxiety rates. Having more houseplants or a garden was also associated with some of these markers of mental health. As hypothesized, the mental health-supportive effects of indoor greenery were largely explained by increased feelings of being away while at home. Neighborhood greenery contributed to neighborhood restorative quality, which in turn facilitated social support and more frequent engagement with greenery, and that led to better mental health. CONCLUSIONS: Students who spent most of their time at home during the COVID-19 epidemic experienced better mental health when exposed to more greenery. Our findings support the idea that exposure to greenery may be a valuable resource during social isolation in the home. However, causal interpretation of these associations is not straightforward.