School of Geography and Planning, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China.
Guangdong Key Laboratory for Urbanization and Geo-Simulation, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 May 30;18(11):5879. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18115879.
A growing body of scientific literature indicates that risk factors for COVID-19 contribute to a high level of psychological distress. However, there is no consensus on which factors contribute more to predicting psychological health.
The present study quantifies the importance of related risk factors on the level of psychological distress and further explores the threshold effect of each rick factor on the level of psychological distress. Both subjective and objective measures of risk factors are considered in the model.
We sampled 937 individual items of data obtained from an online questionnaire between 20 January and 13 February 2020 in China. Objective risk factors were measured in terms of direct distance from respondents' housing to the nearest COVID-19 hospital, direct distance from respondents' housing to the nearest park, and the air quality index (AQI). Perceived risk factors were measured in regard to perceived distance to the nearest COVID-19 hospital, perceived air quality, and perceived environmental quality. Psychological distress was measured with the Kessler psychological distress scale K6 score. The following health risk factors and sociodemographic factors were considered: self-rated health level, physical health status, physical activity, current smoker or drinker, age, gender, marital status, educational attainment level, residence location, and household income level. A gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT) was used to analyse the data.
Health risk factors were the greatest contributors to predicting the level of psychological distress, with a relative importance of 42.32% among all influential factors. Objective risk factors had a stronger predictive power than perceived risk factors (23.49% vs. 16.26%). Furthermore, it was found that there was a dramatic rise in the moderate level of psychological distress regarding the threshold of AQI between 40 and 50, and 110 and 130, respectively. Gender-sensitive analysis revealed that women and men responded differently to psychological distress based on different risk factors.
We found evidence that perceived indoor air quality played a more important role in predicting psychological distress compared to ambient air pollution during the COVID-19 pandemic.
越来越多的科学文献表明,COVID-19 的风险因素导致了较高水平的心理困扰。然而,对于哪些因素更能预测心理健康,尚未达成共识。
本研究量化了相关风险因素对心理困扰程度的重要性,并进一步探讨了每个风险因素对心理困扰程度的阈值效应。该模型考虑了风险因素的主观和客观测量。
我们在中国 2020 年 1 月 20 日至 2 月 13 日期间在线问卷调查中,对 937 项个体数据进行了抽样。客观风险因素通过受访者住房到最近的 COVID-19 医院的直接距离、受访者住房到最近公园的直接距离以及空气质量指数(AQI)来衡量。感知风险因素通过感知到的到最近的 COVID-19 医院的距离、感知空气质量和感知环境质量来衡量。心理困扰程度用 Kessler 心理困扰量表 K6 评分来衡量。考虑了以下健康风险因素和社会人口学因素:自评健康水平、身体健康状况、身体活动、是否当前吸烟者或饮酒者、年龄、性别、婚姻状况、教育程度、居住地点和家庭收入水平。使用梯度提升决策树(GBDT)分析数据。
健康风险因素是预测心理困扰程度的最大因素,在所有有影响的因素中占 42.32%。客观风险因素比感知风险因素具有更强的预测能力(23.49%比 16.26%)。此外,发现 AQI 在 40 到 50 之间以及 110 到 130 之间的阈值时,中度心理困扰程度会急剧上升。性别敏感分析表明,女性和男性对基于不同风险因素的心理困扰有不同的反应。
我们有证据表明,在 COVID-19 大流行期间,与环境空气污染相比,感知室内空气质量在预测心理困扰方面发挥了更重要的作用。