4.7 Article

Housing environment and mental health of Europeans during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-country comparison

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-09316-4

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. RealDania Foundation [PRJ-2019-00020]
  2. Danish National Research Foundation
  3. Danish Regional Committees
  4. Pharmacy Foundation
  5. Egmont Foundation
  6. March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation
  7. Health Foundation
  8. Danish Medical Research Council [SSVF 0646, 271-08-0839/06-066023, O602-01042B, 0602-02738B]
  9. Lundbeck Foundation [195/04, R100A9193]
  10. Innovation Fund Denmark [0603-00294B (09-067124)]
  11. Nordea Foundation [02-2013-2014]
  12. Aarhus Ideas [AU R9-A959-13-S804]
  13. University of Copenhagen Strategic Grant (IFSV 2012)
  14. Danish Council for Independent Research [DFF-4183-00594, DFF-4183-00152]
  15. Velux Foundation [36336]
  16. French National Research Agency (ANR)
  17. French Institute for Public Health Research-IReSP (TGIR Cohortes)
  18. French Inter-departmental Mission for the Fight against Drugs and Drug Addiction (MILDeCA)
  19. French Institute of Cancer (INCa)
  20. Pfizer Foundation
  21. ANR (Agence Nationale de la Recherche) [ANR-20-COVI-000, ANR-10-COHO-06]
  22. Fondation pour la Recherche Medicale [20RR05200]
  23. Inserm (Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale) [C20-26]
  24. French National Health Insurance Fund (Caisse nationale d'assurance maladie, CNAM)
  25. French National Agency for Research [ANR-11-INBS-0002]
  26. Merck Sharp Dohme (MSD)
  27. AstraZeneca
  28. Lundbeck
  29. L'Oreal
  30. Nuffield Foundation [WEL/FR-000022583]
  31. UK Research and Innovation [ES/S002588/1]
  32. Wellcome Trust [221400/Z/20/Z, 205407/Z/16/Z]
  33. UKRI Mental Health Networks
  34. Find Out Now
  35. UCL BioResource
  36. SEO Works
  37. HealthWise Wales
  38. Health and Care Research Wales initiative
  39. MARCH Mental Health Network - Cross-Disciplinary Mental Health Network Plus initiative
  40. FieldworkHub
  41. Optimal Workshop

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health and found a relationship between housing conditions and mental health in European countries. Living alone was associated with higher levels of loneliness and lower life satisfaction. Lack of access to outdoor facilities and household crowding were also suggestively associated with worse mental health outcomes.
Many studies have investigated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health. Throughout the pandemic, time spent at home increased to a great extent due to restrictive measures. Here we set out to investigate the relationship between housing conditions and the mental health of populations across European countries. We analyzed survey data collected during spring 2020 from 69,136 individuals from four cohorts from Denmark, France, and the UK. The investigated housing conditions included household density, composition, and crowding, access to outdoor facilities, dwelling type, and urbanicity. The outcomes were loneliness, anxiety, and life satisfaction. Logistic regression models were used, and results were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. In the meta-analysis, living alone was associated with higher levels of loneliness (OR = 3.08, 95% CI 1.87-5.07), and lower life satisfaction (OR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.05-0.55), compared to living with others. Not having access to an outdoor space and household crowding were suggestively associated with worse outcomes. Living in crowded households, living alone, or lacking access to outdoor facilities may be particularly important in contributing to poor mental health during a lockdown. Addressing the observed fundamental issues related to housing conditions within society will likely have positive effects in reducing social inequalities, as well as improving preparedness for future pandemics.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available