COVID-19 pandemic-related changes in wellness behavior among older Americans.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has taken its toll on citizens in all 50 states of the United States. The United States (U.S.) leads the world with 30,291,863 confirmed reported cases and 549,664 deaths as of March 29, 2021 compared to globally confirmed cases at 127,442,926 and 2,787,915 deaths as of March 29, 2021. The U.S. federal government primarily left the response to the virus to individual states, and each implemented varying measures designed to protect health of citizens and the state's economic well-being. Unintended consequences of the virus and measures to stop its spread may include decreased physical activity and exercise, shifting access and consumption of food, and lower quality-of-life. Therefore, our primary goal was to quantify the impact of COVID-19 on health and well-being by measuring changes in physical activity, mental health-quality of life, food security and nutrition in adults ages 40 and older. We believed shifts in health behaviors would be more prevalent in minorities, less educated, lower socio-economic status, older adults, and those with underlying health conditions, so a secondary goal was to determine the impact of COVID-19 on these sub-populations. METHODS: We conducted an online survey with 9969 adults 40 years and older between 9 August and 15 September 2020 in urban areas across the four U.S. census regions. The survey included questions about demographic variables, pre-existing health conditions, physical activity, access to food, quality-of-life, and nutritional food status and asked participants to respond with information from pre-pandemic and pandemic conditions. We used paired-sample t-tests to detect changes in variables after the start of the pandemic and Cohen's d to determine effect sizes. RESULTS: Our main findings showed a decrease in physical activity since the onset of COVID-19 for minorities and non-minorities. Food security also slightly increased for minorities during the pandemic, but we found no other changes in food security, quality-of-life indicators, or nutritional status of those who responded to this survey. CONCLUSIONS: It is concerning that physical activity declined. Such activity helps maintain physical and mental health, and it is also an important time to socialize for many older adults. In many ways, our data indicate that the older adult population in U.S. cities may be more resilient than expected during the pandemic. However, the pandemic could have negative impacts that we did not detect, either due to the survey instrument or the timing of our survey, so the health and well-being of older adults should continue to be monitored in order to mitigate potential negative impacts.

Should We Put Our Feet in the Water? Use of a Survey to Assess Recreational Exposures to Contaminants in the Anacostia River.

The Anacostia River, a tributary of the Potomac River that flows into the Chesapeake Bay, is highly contaminated with raw sewage, heavy metals, oil and grease, trash, pathogens, excessive sediments, and organic chemicals. Despite this contamination, recreation on the river is very popular, including kayaking, canoeing, rowing, and sport fishing. There is currently no information available on the potential health risks faced by recreational users from exposure to the river's pollutants. A total of 197 recreational users of the Anacostia River were surveyed regarding general demographic information and their recreational behavior over the previous year, including frequency and duration of recreation and specific questions related to their water exposure. 84.1% of respondents who engaged in canoeing, kayaking, rowing, rafting, or paddling were exposed to water on their bodies during recreation. Some 27.2% of those exposed to water reported getting water in their mouth while recreating, and 60.7% of that group reported swallowing some of this water. This is the first study to examine the exposure to contaminants faced by the recreational population of the Anacostia River.

Can realtor education reduce lead exposures for vulnerable populations?

Lead is known for its devastating effects on people, particularly children under the age of six. Disturbed lead paint in homes is the most common source of lead poisoning of children. Preventive approaches including consumer education on the demand side of the housing market (purchasers and renters of housing units) and disclosure regulations on supply side of the housing market (landlords, homeowners, developers, and licensed realtors) have had mixed outcomes. The study described in this article considered whether a novel supply-side intervention that educates licensed real estate agents about the specific dangers of lead poisoning would result in better knowledge of lead hazards and improved behavior with respect to the information they convey to potential home buyers. Ninety-one licensed realtors were trained for four hours on lead hazards and their health impacts. Pre- and postsurveys and a six-month follow-up interview were conducted to assess the impact of the intervention on their knowledge and self-reported behaviors with clients. The findings suggest that supply-side education could have a salutary impact on realtor knowledge and behavior.

Selecting a lead hazard control strategy based on dust lead loading and housing condition: I. Methods and results.

A methodology was developed to classify housing conditions and interior dust lead loadings, using them to predict the relative effectiveness of different lead-based paint hazard control interventions. A companion article in this issue describes how the methodology can be applied. Data from the National Evaluation of the HUD Lead Hazard Control Grant Program, which covered more than 2800 homes in 11 U.S. states, were used. Half these homes (1417) met the study's inclusion criteria. Interior interventions ranged from professional cleaning with spot painting to lead abatement on windows, and enclosure, encapsulation, or removal of other leaded building components. Modeling was used to develop a visual Housing Assessment Tool (HAT), which was then used to predict relative intervention effectiveness for a range of intervention intensities and baseline floor and windowsill dust lead loadings in occupied dwellings. More than 117,000 potential HATs were considered. To be deemed successful, potential HATs were required to meet these criteria: (1) the effect of interior strategy had to differ for HAT ratings of good vs. poor building condition and/or baseline dust lead loadings; (2) the HAT rating had to be a predictor of one year post-intervention loadings; (3) interior intervention strategy had to be a predictor of one-year loadings; (4) higher baseline loadings could not be associated with lower one-year loadings; and (5) neither exterior work nor site/soil work could result in higher predicted one-year loadings for either HAT rating. Of the 1299 HATs that met these criteria, one was selected because it had the most significant differences between strategy intensities when floors and sills were considered together. For the selected HAT, site/soil work was a predictor of one-year loadings for floors (p = 0.009) but not for sills (p = 0.424). Hazard control work on the building exterior was a predictor of both sill and floor one-year loadings (p = 0.004 and p < 0.001, respectively). Regardless of the type of interior intervention strategy, interior work was a predictor of both floor and sill one-year loadings (each p < or = 0.001).

Selecting a lead hazard control strategy based on dust lead loading and housing condition: II. Application of Housing Assessment Tool (HAT) modeling results.

In Part I in this issue, modeling was used to identify a Housing Assessment Tool (HAT) that can be used to predict relative intervention effectiveness for a range of intervention intensities and baseline dust lead loadings in occupied dwellings. The HAT predicts one year post-intervention floor and windowsill loadings and the probability that these loadings will exceed current federal lead hazard standards. This article illustrates the field application of the HAT, helping practitioners determine the minimum intervention intensity needed to reach "acceptable" one year post-intervention levels, with acceptability defined based on specific project needs, local needs, regulations, and resource constraints. The HAT is used to classify a dwelling's baseline condition as good or poor. If the average number of interior non-intact painted surfaces per room is >/=2, then the dwelling is rated as poor. If exterior windows/doors are deteriorated and the average number of exterior non-intact painted surfaces per building side is >/=5, then the dwelling is rated as poor. If neither of these conditions is true, then the dwelling's HAT rating is good. The HAT rating is then combined with baseline average floor loading to help select the treatment intensity. For example, if the baseline floor loading is 100 mug/ft(2) (1,075 mug/m(2) and the HAT rating is poor, the probability that the one-year floor loading exceeds the federal standard of 40 mug/ft(2) (430 mug/m(2) is 27% for a high-intensity strategy (i.e., window lead abatement with other treatments) but is 54% for a lower-intensity strategy (i.e., cleaning and spot painting). If the HAT rating is good, the probability that the one-year floor loading exceeds 40 mug/ft(2) is approximately the same for low- and high-intensity strategies (18% for window lead abatement with other treatments compared with 16% for cleaning and spot painting). Lead hazard control practitioners can use this information to make empirically based judgments about the treatment intensity needed to ensure that one year post-intervention loadings remain below federal standards.