Housing conditions and changes in professional activity during lockdown and the risk of prevalent and incident depression: Findings from the CONSTANCES cohort.

BACKGROUND: Material conditions of lockdown and changes in regular functioning may have played a role on depressive manifestations. We aimed to examine the association between housing conditions and changes in professional activity and depression during the first COVID-19 outbreak in France. METHOD: Participants of the CONSTANCES cohort were followed online. A first questionnaire covered the lockdown period (assessing housing conditions and changes in professional activity), and a second the post-lockdown period (assessing depression using the Center of Epidemiologic Studies Depression-Scale (CES-D)). Incident depression was also estimated (with a previous CES-D measure). Logistic regression models were applied. RESULTS: 22,042 participants (median age 46 years, 53.2 % women) were included and 20,534 had a previous CES-D measure. Depression was associated with female gender, lower household income and past history of depression. A negative gradient between the number of rooms and the likelihood of depression was consistently observed (OR = 1.55 95 % [1.19-2.00] for one room, OR = 0.76 [0.65-0.88] for seven rooms), while a U-shape relationship was observed with the number of people living together (OR = 1.62 [1.42-1.84] for living alone, OR = 1.44 [1.07-1.92] for six persons). These associations were also observed with incident depression. Changes in professional activity were associated with depression (Started distance working (OR = 1.33 [1.17-1.50]). Starting distance working was also associated with incident depression (OR = 1.27 [1.08-1.48]). LIMITATION: A cross-sectional design was used. CONCLUSION: The consequences of lockdown on depression may vary depending on living conditions and changes in professional activity, including distance working. These results could help to better identify vulnerable people to promote mental health.

Review of the Impact of Housing Quality on Inequalities in Health and Well-Being.

Housing quality is essential for population health and broader well-being. The World Health Organization Housing and health guidelines highlight interventions that protect occupants from cold and hot temperatures, injuries, and other hazards. The COVID-19 pandemic has emphasized the importance of ventilation standards. Housing standards are unevenly developed, implemented, and monitored globally, despite robust research demonstrating that retrofitting existing houses and constructing high-quality new ones can reduce respiratory, cardiovascular, and infectious diseases. Indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities, and people with low incomes face cumulative disadvantages that are exacerbated by poor-quality housing. These can be partially ameliorated by community-based programs to improve housing quality, particularly for children and older people, who are hospitalized more often for housing-related illnesses. There is renewed interest among policy makers and researchers in the health and well-being of people in public and subsidized housing, who are disproportionately disadvantaged by avoidable housing-related diseases and injuries. Improving the overall quality of new and existing housing and neighborhoods has multiple cobenefits, including reducing carbon emissions.

Examining the Influence of Housing Conditions and Daily Greenspace Exposure on People's Perceived COVID-19 Risk and Distress.

Many people have worried about COVID-19 infection, job loss, income reduction, and family conflict during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some social groups may be particularly vulnerable due to their residential neighborhoods and daily activities. On the other hand, people's daily exposure to greenspace offers promising pathways for reducing these worries associated with COVID-19. Using data collected with a questionnaire and a two-day activity diary from two typical neighborhoods in Hong Kong, this study examines how people's housing conditions and daily greenspace exposure affect their perceived COVID-19 risk and distress (i.e., worries about job loss, income reduction, and family conflict) during the pandemic. First, the study compares people's perceived COVID-19 risk and distress based on their residential neighborhoods. Further, it examines the associations between people's perceived COVID-19 risk and distress with their housing conditions and daily greenspace exposure using ordinal logistic regression models. The results indicate that living in a high-risk neighborhood, being married, renting a residential unit, and living in a large household are significantly associated with a higher neighborhood-based perceived COVID-19 risk and distress during the pandemic. In addition, people also reported lower mobility-based perceived COVID-19 risk when compared to their neighborhood-based perceived COVID-19 risk, while they still have a high perceived COVID-19 risk in their occupational venues if they have to work in a high-risk district (e.g., Kowloon). Lastly, daily greenspace exposure (i.e., woodland) could reduce people's perceived COVID-19 risk and distress. These results have important implications for the public health authority when formulating the measures during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Effect of Housing Quality on the Mental Health of University Students during the COVID-19 Lockdown.

COVID-19 outbreak imposed rapid and severe public policies that consistently impacted the lifestyle habits and mental health of the general population. Despite vaccination, lockdown restrictions are still considered as potential measures to contrast COVID-19 variants spread in several countries. Recent studies have highlighted the impacts of lockdowns on the population's mental health; however, the role of the indoor housing environment where people spent most of their time has rarely been considered. Data from 8177 undergraduate and graduate students were collected in a large, cross-sectional, web-based survey, submitted to a university in Northern Italy during the first lockdown period from 1 April to 1 May 2020. Logistic regression analysis showed significant associations between moderate and severe depression symptomatology (PHQ-9 scores ≥ 15), and houses with both poor indoor quality and small dimensions (OR = 4.132), either medium dimensions (OR = 3.249) or big dimensions (OR = 3.522). It was also found that, regardless of housing size, poor indoor quality is significantly associated with moderate-severe depressive symptomatology. Further studies are encouraged to explore the long-term impact of built environment parameter modifications on mental health, and therefore support housing and public health policies.

Impact of housing conditions on changes in youth's mental health following the initial national COVID-19 lockdown: a cohort study.

We aimed to investigate if declines in youth's mental health during lockdown were dependent on housing condition among 7445 youth (median age ~ 20 years) from the Danish National Birth Cohort (DNBC), with data collected at 18 years of age and again three weeks into the first national lockdown (April 2020). We examined associations between housing conditions (access to outdoor spaces, urbanicity, household density, and household composition) and changes in mental health (mental well-being, Quality of Life (QoL) and loneliness). We report results from multivariate linear and logistic regression models. Youth without access to outdoor spaces experienced greater declines in mental well-being (vs. garden; mean difference: - 0·75 (95% CI - 1·14, - 0·36)), and correspondingly greater odds of onset of low mental well-being (vs. garden; OR: 1·72 (95% CI 1·20, 2·48)). Youth in higher density households vs. below median or living alone vs. with parents only also had greater odds of onset of low mental well-being (OR: 1·26 (95% CI 1·08, 1·46) and OR: 1·62 (95% CI 1·17, 2·23), respectively). Living in denser households (vs. below median; OR: 1·18 (95% CI 1·06, 1·33), as well as living alone (vs. with parents; OR: 1·38 (95% CI 1·04, 1·82) was associated with onset of low QoL. Living alone more than doubled odds of onset of loneliness compared to living with parents, OR: 2·12 (95% CI 1·59, 2·82). Youth living alone, in denser households, and without direct access to outdoor spaces may be especially vulnerable to mental health declines.