The COVID-19 pandemic led to national lockdowns in countries around the world. Whilst lockdowns were shown to be effective in reducing the spread of disease, they were also associated with adverse effects on people’s mental health and wellbeing. Previous studies have suggested that time spent outside may have played a role in mitigating these negative effects, but research on this topic remains limited. Therefore, this study was designed to explore the longitudinal associations between going outdoors and people’s mental health and wellbeing during the first national lockdown (March–May 2020) in the UK. Data from 35,301 participants from the COVID-19 Social Study were analysed. Fixed effects regression was used to explore the longitudinal association between changes in going outdoors (the number of days spent outside) and changes in depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, life satisfaction and loneliness. A range of household and neighbourhood moderators were examined. Results show that an increase in the number of days spent outside was associated with decreases in depressive and anxiety symptoms and an increase in life satisfaction. Associations were more salient amongst people living with others, and those with greater satisfaction with their neighbourhood walkability and green spaces. No longitudinal association was found with loneliness. Overall, our analyses showed a positive association between going outdoors and improved mental health and wellbeing during the first COVID-19 lockdown in the UK. These findings are important for formulating guidance for people to stay well at home during pandemics and for the on-going nature-based social prescribing scheme.

Background Researchers use both subjective self‐report and objective measures, such as official records, to investigate the impact of childhood adversity on psychopathology. However, it is unclear whether subjective and objective measures of childhood adversity (a) show agreement, and (b) differentially predict psychopathology. Method To address this, we conducted a pre‐registered meta‐analysis to examine the agreement between subjective and objective measures of childhood adversity, and their prediction of psychopathology. We searched in PubMed, PsycINFO and Embase for articles with both subjective measures (self‐reports) and objective measures of childhood adversity (comprising official records, or reports from multiple informants unrelated to the target individual), and measures of psychopathology. Results We identified 22 studies (n = 18,163) with data on agreement between subjective and objective measures of childhood adversities, and 17 studies (n = 14,789) with data on the associations between subjective and objective measures with psychopathology. First, we found that subjective and objective measures of childhood adversities were only moderately correlated (e.g. for maltreatment, r = .32, 95% CI = 0.23–0.41). Second, subjective measures of childhood adversities were associated with psychopathology, independent of objective measures (e.g. for maltreatment, r = .16, 95% CI = 0.09–0.22). In contrast, objective measures of childhood adversities had null or minimal associations with psychopathology, independent of subjective measures (e.g. r for maltreatment = .06, 95% CI = −0.02–0.13). Conclusions Our findings suggest that the effects of childhood adversity on psychopathology are primarily driven by a person's subjective experience. If this is the case, clinical interventions targeting memories and cognitive processes surrounding childhood adversity may reduce the risk of psychopathology in exposed individuals.