No abstract

Background Mental health is challenged due to serious life events such as the COVID-19 pandemic and can differ by the level of resilience. National studies on mental health and resilience of individuals and communities during the pandemic provide heterogeneous results and more data on mental health outcomes and resilience trajectories are needed to better understand the impact of the pandemic on mental health in Europe. Methods COPERS (Coping with COVID-19 with Resilience Study) is an observational multinational longitudinal study conducted in eight European countries (Albania, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Romania, Serbia, and Slovenia). Recruitment of participants is based on convenience sampling and data are gathered through an online questionnaire. gathering data on depression, anxiety, stress-related symptoms suicidal ideation and resilience. Resilience is measured with the Brief Resilience Scale and with the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale. Depression is measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire, Anxiety with the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale and stress-related symptoms with the Impact of Event Scale Revised- Suicidal ideation is assessed using item 9 of the PHQ-9. We also consider potential determinants and moderating factors for mental health conditions, including sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., age, gender), social environmental factors (e.g., loneliness, social capital) and coping strategies (e.g., Self-efficacy Belief). Discussion To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to multi-nationally and longitudinally determine mental health outcomes and resilience trajectories in Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of this study will help to determine mental health conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic across Europe. The findings may benefit pandemic preparedness planning and future evidence-based mental health policies.

No abstract

Background A relationship between green space and health has been shown in several epidemiological studies. The impact of different types of green space is still relatively unknown. To start filling this gap, we looked at associations between different green space types and health outcomes (depression and mental health). Methods Data are obtained from a cross-sectional study (n = 479). Depression (assessed with PHQ-9) and mental health (assessed with GHQ-28) are dependent variables. Availability of green space in the surrounding neighborhood was assessed as independent variable by the percentage of green space ( > =1ha) within a 250m radius participants residence. Survey data were analyzed using IBM SPSS 26 and Geo data using QGIS 3.18.0. Results N = 479 participants of a cross-sectional study in 2018 provided data (49.4%, n = 240 women; 49.6%, n = 239 men). Participants had a mean age of 57.55 years (SD: 18.80, min-max:18-95), majority (75.2%, n = 360) were married or partnered, had a lower educational qualification than A-levels equivalent (56.8%, n = 272), were not employed (53%, n = 254), had a net household income of at least 3. 000€ per month (40.1%, n = 192) and at least sometimes financial worries (51.4%, n = 246). Green areas without agricultural areas show an association with frequency of depression (B(SE)=0.056(0.024), p = 0.018). This contrasts with green spaces including agricultural areas, where there is no statistically significant association (B(SE)=0.007(0.012), p = 0.564). Discussion We found an association between type of green space and depression. Further studies are needed to establish a grid for assessing characteristics and quality criteria of green spaces. However, it can already be assumed that there is an association between quality of green spaces and psychosocial outcomes.

Background The ongoing community-based participatory research (CBPR) project is based on a representative cross-sectional study on health and well-being in a rural region of Germany (n = 655). Methods We use a wide array of participatory methods to involve the general public, politicians and experts such as conferences open to the public including the use of the Mentimeter app, e-participation via an online-forum, working groups on topics identified by the public, a Delphi survey elicit expert opinions and focus groups to get deeper knowledge on key aspects. Results The results confirm the interest the public has in understanding better scientific research in the field of public health. The diversity of people (most notably age, social background) is a challenge in reaching out to people. Presenting statistical data to non-experts requires the researchers to re-think ways of presenting data, therefore basic knowledge on data research has to be taught. Usage of the tools such as the Mentimeter app offers a low-threshold for empowering people to take part in participatory conferences. Conclusions Sustainability is of utmost importance for participatory research. The population not only has the need but deserves timely information on results. Key challenges are communication, building trust and implementing sustainable CBPR projects. CBPR helps in building mutual trust, knowledge and science - public co-operations. Conferences open to the public that are tailored to the public`s needs and competences show the great interest people have in scientific knowledge generated through population-based surveys. By participatory research, Public Health Science can contribute to society, empower the general public. Key messages There is an existing interest in CBPR by the general public. It can be assumed that promoting CBPR in a sustainable manner will increase that interest. The diversity of participants is a challenge as well as communicating scientific data to non-experts.