Psychological distress in the academic population and its association with socio-demographic and lifestyle characteristics during COVID-19 pandemic lockdown: Results from a large multicenter Italian study.

Measures implemented in many countries to contain the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a change in lifestyle with unpredictable consequences on physical and mental health. We aimed at identifying the variables associated with psychological distress during the lockdown between April and May 2020 in the Italian academic population. We conducted a multicenter cross-sectional online survey (IO CONTO 2020) within five Italian universities. Among about 240,000 individuals invited to participate through institutional communications, 18 120 filled the questionnaire. Psychological distress was measured by the self-administered Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). The covariates collected included demographic and lifestyle characteristics, trust in government, doctors and scientists. Associations of covariates with influenza-like symptoms or positive COVID-19 test and with psychological distress were assessed by multiple regression models at the local level; a meta-analysis of the results was then performed. Severe levels of anxiety or depression were reported by 20% of the sample and were associated with being a student or having a lower income, irrespective of their health condition and worries about contracting the virus. The probability of being severely anxious or depressed also depended on physical activity: compared to those never exercising, the highest OR being for those who stopped during lockdown (1.53; 95% CI, 1.28 to 1.84) and the lowest for those who continued (0.78; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.95). Up to 21% of severe cases of anxiety or depression might have been avoided if during lockdown participants had continued to exercise as before. Socioeconomic insecurity contributes to increase mental problems related to the COVID-19 pandemic and to the measures to contain it. Maintaining or introducing an adequate level of physical activity is likely to mitigate such detrimental effects. Promoting safe practice of physical activity should remain a public health priority to reduce health risks during the pandemic.

Comparison of two statistical indicators in communicating epidemiological results to the population: a randomized study in a high environmental risk area of Italy.

BACKGROUND: When communicating risks to the general population, the format of the epidemiological results may affect individual reactions. In environmental epidemiology, no study has compared the use of different statistical formats in communicating results to the population. The aim of this paper is to investigate whether the degree of concern expressed by residents of a high environmental risk site, regarding epidemiological results on cancer mortality in the area where they live, is influenced by the statistical indicator used in communication. METHODS: A sample of residents in the high environmental risk area of Livorno (Italy) was randomized to respond to different questionnaires, in which the same epidemiological results were expressed by two alternative risk indexes: percent excess risk and time needed to harm, defined as the number of days that one has to wait for, on average, to observe 1 death in excess in respect to the baseline. Participants were asked to express their concern on a quantitative scale or to rank different diseases according to their impressions. The statistical analysis was performed using an Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting approach based on propensity score, in order to account for sample stratification and adjust for unbalance between groups occurring despite randomization. RESULTS: The probability of high concern levels was larger under time needed to harm than under percent excess, with a difference between proportions of 6.7% (95% Confidence Interval, 0.6,12.8%). Mortality from sexual glands cancer was ranked as more worrisome and mortality from thyroid gland cancer as less worrisome under time needed to harm than under percent excess. No rank change was found for lung cancer. Larger differences between the two indicators arose in subjects with higher education or better numerical skills. CONCLUSIONS: Communicating epidemiological results to the population is not a neutral task. The degree of concern and judgments when comparing results on different diseases may depend on the risk indicators used. Translating scientific results into lay language should not exempt from careful evaluation of the impact of this translation on lay people.