Greenery exposure and suicide mortality later in life: A longitudinal register-based case-control study

Helbich, Marco; O’Connor, Rory C.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M; Hagedoorn, Paulien

doi:10.1016/j.envint.2020.105982

Cited by 35 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It can be assumed that a high number of staff and some students taking part in the study live in York and have access to these green and blue spaces. This finding aligns with a study confirming the relevance of long-term exposure to greenery to resilience, although having access to work had more effect on resilience (50).…”

Section: Presenteeism and Absenteeismsupporting

confidence: 92%

Workplace Stress, Presenteeism, Absenteeism, and Resilience Amongst University Staff and Students in the COVID-19 Lockdown

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This study explored how the COVID-19 outbreak and arrangements such as remote working and furlough affect work or study stress levels and functioning in staff and students at the University of York, UK.Methods: An invitation to participate in an online survey was sent to all University of York staff and students in May-June 2020. We measured stress levels [VAS-scale, Perceived Stress Questionnaire (PSQ)], mental health [anxiety (GAD-7), depression (PHQ-9)], physical health (PHQ-15, chronic medical conditions checklist), presenteeism, and absenteeism levels (iPCQ). We explored demographic and other characteristics as factors which may contribute to resilience and vulnerability for the impact of COVID-19 on stress.Results: One thousand and fifty five staff and nine hundred and twenty five students completed the survey. Ninety-eight per cent of staff and seventy-eight per cent of students worked or studied remotely. 7% of staff and 10% of students reported sickness absence. 26% of staff and 40% of the students experienced presenteeism. 22–24% of staff reported clinical-level anxiety and depression scores, and 37.2 and 46.5% of students. Staff experienced high stress levels due to COVID-19 (66.2%, labeled vulnerable) and 33.8% experienced low stress levels (labeled resilient). Students were 71.7% resilient vs. 28.3% non-resilient. Predictors of vulnerability in staff were having children [OR = 2.23; CI (95) = 1.63–3.04] and social isolation [OR = 1.97; CI (95) = 1.39–2.79] and in students, being female [OR = 1.62; CI (95) = 1.14–2.28], having children [OR = 2.04; CI (95) = 1.11–3.72], and social isolation [OR = 1.78; CI (95) = 1.25–2.52]. Resilience was predicted by exercise in staff [OR = 0.83; CI (95) = 0.73–0.94] and in students [OR = 0.85; CI (95) = 0.75–0.97].Discussion: University staff and students reported high psychological distress, presenteeism and absenteeism. However, 33.8% of staff and 71.7% of the students were resilient. Amongst others, female gender, having children, and having to self-isolate contributed to vulnerability. Exercise contributed to resilience.Conclusion: Resilience occurred much more often in students than in staff, although psychological distress was much higher in students. This suggests that predictors of resilience may differ from psychological distress per se. Hence, interventions to improve resilience should not only address psychological distress but may also address other factors.

show abstract

Section: Presenteeism and Absenteeismsupporting

confidence: 92%

Workplace Stress, Presenteeism, Absenteeism, and Resilience Amongst University Staff and Students in the COVID-19 Lockdown

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Suicide mortality is heightened not only by a lack of social integration, but also by unemployment and higher levels of poverty [ 42 , 57 ]. Suicide rates are higher for unemployed people and those with a lower socioeconomic status (i.e., people with a lower education and a lower income) [ 39 , 58 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fourth, we question whether urban–rural differences can be captured meaningfully with a single proxy variable that may be a poor substitute for area-level compositional effects (e.g., air pollution [ 77 ], green space [ 57 ], deprivation [ 59 , 60 ]). Rather than using a single overly crude urban–rural indicator, future research is advised to distinguish between environmental and social characteristics to add in-depth meaning to urban and rural geographies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rather than using a single overly crude urban–rural indicator, future research is advised to distinguish between environmental and social characteristics to add in-depth meaning to urban and rural geographies. Methodological rigor in terms of refined exposure assessments can also be achieved by the application of small-scale administrative areas within which people live or even their residential address location [ 57 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Inequalities of Suicide Mortality across Urban and Rural Areas: A Literature Review

Casant

Helbich

2022

IJERPH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Suicide mortality is a major contributor to premature death, with geographic variation in suicide rates. Why suicide rates differ across urban and rural areas has not yet been fully established. We conducted a literature review describing the urban–rural disparities in suicide mortality. Articles were searched in five databases (EMBASE, PubMed, PsychINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science) from inception till 26 May 2021. Eligible studies were narratively analyzed in terms of the urban–rural disparities in suicides, different suicide methods, and suicide trends over time. In total, 24 articles were included in our review. Most studies were ecological and cross-sectional evidence tentatively suggests higher suicide rates in rural than in urban areas. Men were more at risk by rurality than women, but suicide is in general more prevalent among men. No obvious urban–rural pattern emerged regarding suicide means or urban–rural changes over time. Potential suicidogenic explanations include social isolation, easier access to lethal means, stigmatization toward people with mental health problems, and reduced supply of mental health services. For research progress, we urge, first, individual-level cohort and case-control studies in different sociocultural settings. Second, both rurality and urbanicity are multifaceted concepts that are inadequately captured by oversimplified typologies and require detailed assessments of the sociophysical residential environment.

show abstract

“…The relationship between green space exposure and health outcomes has been measured at national (e.g., Lu, Chen, et al, 2021;Mitchell & Popham, 2008;Nowak et al, 2014), city (e.g., Donovan et al, 2011;Melis et al, 2015), and community/site (e.g., Chang et al, 2021; scales. Green spaces, especially those in close proximity, can affect three main categories of health outcomes: mental (Jiang et al, 2014;Jiang et al, 2018), physical Lu, 2018;Mitchell & Popham, 2008), and social (Helbich et al, 2020;Holtan et al, 2014). The effects of green spaces on such health outcomes are complex and interdependent (Jiang, Zhang, et al, 2015;Sullivan & Bartlett, 2005).…”

Section: Accumulating Evidence: the Health Benefits Of Green Spacesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Green spaces, especially forest, linked to lower SARS-CoV-2 infection rates: A one-year nationwide study

Jiang

Yang

Chen

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the associations between green spaces and one–years' worth of SARS–CoV–2 infection rates across all 3,108 counties in the contiguous United States after controlling for multiple categories of confounding factors. We found green spaces at the county level have a significant negative association with infection rates. Among all types of green spaces, forest yields the most consistent and strongest negative association. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the negative association of forest across five urbanicity levels, and the strength of the association increases as disease incidence increases across five time periods. Although forest located in moderately urbanized counties yields the strongest association, the negative pattern of significant associations holds across all five urbanicity levels. A population–weighted analysis revealed that proximity to forest within a moderate walking distance (≤ 1.0–1.4 km) may provide the greatest protection against the risk of infection.

show abstract

Greenery exposure and suicide mortality later in life: A longitudinal register-based case-control study

Cited by 35 publications

References 51 publications

Workplace Stress, Presenteeism, Absenteeism, and Resilience Amongst University Staff and Students in the COVID-19 Lockdown

Workplace Stress, Presenteeism, Absenteeism, and Resilience Amongst University Staff and Students in the COVID-19 Lockdown

Inequalities of Suicide Mortality across Urban and Rural Areas: A Literature Review

Green spaces, especially forest, linked to lower SARS-CoV-2 infection rates: A one-year nationwide study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About