Abstract
Background The first COVID-19 lockdown in the UK was initially hailed as a great leveller. However, given that people were restricted to their homes and immediate neighbourhoods, there were stark inequalities in how different people experienced lockdown. Nevertheless, evidence on the associations of home and neighbourhood conditions in mental health during lockdown is sparce.
Methods Using data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC), a UK population-based cohort, we examined associations of home and neighbourhood conditions with anxiety and depression symptoms at two points during the first UK lockdown in 2020 (23/03/20-15/06/20). Questionnaires were sent to the ALSPAC cohort at two timepoints (T1: April; T2: May/June), including validated measures of mental health, and questions about current home conditions and behaviours, including access to nature, garden access, house type, and household composition. Neighbourhood conditions were obtained via a novel linkage, and included neighbourhood deprivation, population density, social fragmentation, and greenspace. Main associations were examined using linear regression. Potential confounders were identified using a directed acyclic graph and included ethnicity, family psychiatric history, maternal social class, financial difficulties before lockdown, and previous anxiety and depression at age 18.
Findings At T1, reduced access to nature (B=1.06, 95% CI=0.68-1.45, p<0.001) and neighbourhood deprivation (B=0.25, 95% CI=0.02-0.48) were associated with anxiety. Furthermore, reduced access to nature (B=0.99, 95% CI=0.57-1.40, p<0.001), no garden access (B=0.62, 95% CI=0.04-1.20, p=0.037), living alone (B=1.53, 95% CI=0.63-2.43, p=0.001), and neighbourhood deprivation (B=0.27, 95% CI=0.02-0.52, p=0.033) were associated with depression. Associations were similar, but often weaker, at T2. For example, there was strong evidence of associations only for access nature with anxiety (B=0.74, 95% CI=0.25-1.23, p=0.004); and for access to nature (B=1.06, 95% CI=0.50-1.61, p=0.001) and living alone (B=1.19, 95% CI=0.25-2.13, p=0.013) with depression.
Interpretation Disadvantaged home and neighbourhood conditions, especially reduced access to nature and neighbourhood deprivation, were associated with more anxiety and depression symptoms during the first UK lockdown. In the case of future pandemics, mitigation efforts should be tailored to reduce the burden on mental health for those most vulnerable. However, the causality of these observational findings is uncertain.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The UK Medical Research Council and Wellcome Trust (Grant ref: 217065/Z/19/Z) and the University of Bristol provide core support for ALSPAC. This research was funded in whole, or in part, by the Wellcome Trust (218632/Z/19/Z). For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright license to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. A comprehensive list of grants funding is available on the ALSPAC website (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/external/documents/grant-acknowledgements.pdf). This research was specifically funded by grants from the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) to collect data on depression and anxiety [MR/L022206/1 to Prof Hickman]; and a grant from the Natural Environment Research Council to facilitate linkage to geo-spatial and natural environment data [R8/H12/83/NE/P01830/1 to Mr Boyd]. Dr Newbury is funded by a Sir Henry Wellcome Postdoctoral Fellowship from the Wellcome Trust [218632/Z/19/Z] and was awarded a grant from the British Academy [COV19\200057] to conduct this research. Mr Thomas is funded by the MRC and UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) to develop centralized record linkage services via the UK Longitudinal Linkage Collaboration (MR/X021556/1, ES/X000567/1) and by Health Data Research UK to support the development of social and environmental epidemiology in longitudinal studies (HDRUK2023.0029).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
ALSPAC Ethics and Law Committee and the Local Research Ethics Committees gave ethical approval for this work. https://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/alspac/documents/governance/Research_Ethics_Committee_approval_references.pdf
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
