Social isolation through single housing negatively affects trabecular and cortical bone in adult male, but not female, C57BL/6J mice.

Social isolation is a potent form of psychosocial stress and is a growing public health concern, particularly among older adults. Even prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has significantly increased the prevalence of isolation and loneliness, researchers have been concerned about a rising "epidemic" of loneliness. Isolation is associated with an increased risk for many physical and mental health disorders and increased overall mortality risk. In addition to social isolation, older adults are also at greater risk for osteoporosis and related fractures. While researchers have investigated the negative effects of other forms of psychosocial stress on bone, including depression and PTSD, the effects of social isolation on bone have not been thoroughly investigated. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that social isolation would lead to bone loss in male and female C57BL/6J mice. 16-week-old mice were randomized into social isolation (1 mouse/cage) or grouped housing (4 mice/cage) for four weeks. Social isolation significantly decreased trabecular (BV/TV, BMD, Tb. N., Tb. Th.) and cortical bone (Ct.Th., Ct.Ar., Ct.Ar./Tt.Ar., pMOI) parameters in male, but not female mice. Isolated male mice had signs of reduced bone remodeling represented by reduced osteoblast numbers, osteoblast-related gene expression and osteoclast-related gene expression. However, isolated females had increased bone resorption-related gene expression, without any change in bone mass. Overall, our data suggest that social isolation has negative effects on bone in male, but not female mice, although females showed suggestive effects on bone resorption. These results provide critical insight into the effects of isolation on bone and have key clinical implications as we grapple with the long-term health impacts of the rise in social isolation related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Communicating Scientific Uncertainty About the COVID-19 Pandemic: Online Experimental Study of an Uncertainty-Normalizing Strategy.

BACKGROUND: Communicating scientific uncertainty about public health threats such as COVID-19 is an ethically desirable task endorsed by expert guidelines on crisis communication. However, the communication of scientific uncertainty is challenging because of its potential to promote ambiguity aversion-a well-described syndrome of negative psychological responses consisting of heightened risk perceptions, emotional distress, and decision avoidance. Communication strategies that can inform the public about scientific uncertainty while mitigating ambiguity aversion are a critical unmet need. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate whether an "uncertainty-normalizing" communication strategy-aimed at reinforcing the expected nature of scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic-can reduce ambiguity aversion, and to compare its effectiveness to conventional public communication strategies aimed at promoting hope and prosocial values. METHODS: In an online factorial experiment conducted from May to June 2020, a national sample of 1497 US adults read one of five versions of an informational message describing the nature, transmission, prevention, and treatment of COVID-19; the versions varied in level of expressed scientific uncertainty and supplemental focus (ie, uncertainty-normalizing, hope-promoting, and prosocial). Participants then completed measures of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral manifestations of ambiguity aversion (ie, perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19, COVID-19 worry, and intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors and vaccination). Analyses assessed (1) the extent to which communicating uncertainty produced ambiguity-averse psychological responses; (2) the comparative effectiveness of uncertainty-normalizing, hope-promoting, and prosocial communication strategies in reducing ambiguity-averse responses; and (3) potential moderators of the effects of alternative uncertainty communication strategies. RESULTS: The communication of scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic increased perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19 and worry about COVID-19, consistent with ambiguity aversion. However, it did not affect intentions for risk-reducing behaviors or vaccination. The uncertainty-normalizing strategy reduced these aversive effects of communicating scientific uncertainty, resulting in levels of both perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19 and worry about COVID-19 that did not differ from the control message that did not communicate uncertainty. In contrast, the hope-promoting and prosocial strategies did not decrease ambiguity-averse responses to scientific uncertainty. Age and political affiliation, respectively, moderated the effects of uncertainty communication strategies on intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors and worry about COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Communicating scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic produces ambiguity-averse cognitive and emotional, but not behavioral, responses among the general public, and an uncertainty-normalizing communication strategy reduces these responses. Normalizing uncertainty may be an effective strategy for mitigating ambiguity aversion in crisis communication efforts. More research is needed to test uncertainty-normalizing communication strategies and to elucidate the factors that moderate their effectiveness.