Objective We aimed to investigate the mental health impact of COVID-19 on a demographically well-characterized population cohort by gender and previous depression status. Methods Among people who participated in a community cohort study between 2013 and 2018 with previous depression measurement, a total of 1928 people without quarantine experience (680 men and 1249 women) were included after responding to an online survey in March 2020. In the 2020 survey, people were queried about daily needs supply, social support, risk perception, change during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as mental health indices measuring loneliness, anxiety symptoms, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and depression. Separate analyses by gender were conducted to assess the association between COVID-19-related experiences and each mental health index, using multivariable logistic regressions with additional adjustment and stratification with pre-existing depression status. Results We could not observe significant gender differences for depression, anxiety, PTSD, and loneliness at 55 days after the start of the COVID-19 outbreak. Most external support, including daily needs supply and social support, protected men and women from experiencing severe anxiety (for life supply, OR = 0.92 (95%CI 0.88–0.97) (men) and OR = 0.95 (95% CI 0.91–0.99) (women); for social support, OR = 0.92(both for men and women, p < 0.01)). The results were similar for depression and PTSD. External support showed a larger reduction in the likelihoods for anxiety and depression during the COVID-19 pandemic among people with pre-existing depression compared to previously healthy people, and it was more prominent in men. Conclusion COVID-19 significantly affected the mental health of both men and women in the early period of the pandemic. Having enough supply of daily needs and social support seems important, especially for people with previous depression.

No abstract

Background There are several ways to determine psychological resilience. However, the correlation between each measurement is not clear. We explored associations of baseline relative “resilience” and risk with later self‐reported trait resilience and other biological/mental health indices. Methods We utilized baseline and follow‐up survey data from 500 participants aged 30–64 in the community cohort. Baseline “relative” resilience was defined by: (a) negative life events (NLEs) in the six months before baseline and (b) depressive symptoms at baseline, yielding four groups of individuals: i) “Unexposed and well,” “Vulnerable (depression),” “Reactive (depression),” and “Resilient.” “Trait” resilience at follow‐up was self‐reported using the Connor‐Davidson Resilience Scale (CD‐RISC). Associations between relative resilience at baseline, CD‐RISC, and heart rate variability (HRV) indices at follow‐up were assessed with generalized linear regression models after adjustments. Associations between baseline resilience and subsequent loneliness/depression indices were also evaluated. Results Overall trait resilience and its subfactors at follow‐up showed strong negative associations with “Reactive” at baseline (adj‐β for total CD‐RISC score: −11.204 (men), −9.472 (women)). However, resilience at baseline was not associated with later HRV, which was compared with the significant positive association observed between CD‐RISC and HRV at the same follow‐up time point. The “Reactive” exhibited significantly increased depressive symptoms at follow‐up. The overall distribution pattern of CD‐RISC subfactors differed by baseline resilience status by sex. Conclusions The “relative” resilience based on the absence of depression despite prior adversity seems to be highly related with trait resilience at follow‐up but not with HRV. The sub‐factor pattern of CD‐RISC was different by sex.

Recently, construction industry shows active expansion in overseas construction market. But the active work limited in construction work, on the other hand, design-drawing work is evaluated shortage of competitive power. So this study aim to improve the competitive of 'domestic design-drawing work'thorough objective evaluation. Objective evaluation is consist of 'design attribution'. Design attribution is based on the execution drawing and complement by existing reasearch, expert interview. And then, list up the 'design attribution' evaluation list to carry out a survey targeting hands-on worker. Survey is consist of 'Likert 5-point scale, FMEA method'. As a result, construction company and design company show different opinions in both relative position evaluation and importance evaluation.

Objectives. To explore factors affecting attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccine, including sociodemographic characteristics and mental health status during the pandemic. Methods.Participants totaled 1,768, and were originally included in a community cohort study who responded to three online surveys related to COVID-19 (March 2020-March 2021. The K-means method was used to cluster trust and intention toward the COVID-19 vaccine.Baseline (2013-2018) sociodemographic characteristics, physical health status, and depressive symptoms were analyzed as exposure variables, and current mental health status was included in the analyses.Results. Most participants were classified into the moderate trust and high intention cluster (838, 47.4%); those with high trust and high intention accounted only for 16.86%. They tended to be older, had high-income level, and regular physical activity at baseline (p < 0.05); their sleep quality and psychological resilience were relatively high, compared to other groups. Conclusions.Our results suggest that more efforts are required to enhance the need and trust of COVID-19 vaccines.