Urban stormwater retention capacity of nature-based solutions at different climatic conditions

Climate change and the continuing increase in human population creates a growing need to tackle urban stormwater problems. One promising mitigation option is by using nature-based solutions (NBS) – especially sustainable urban stormwater management technologies that are key elements of NBS action. We used a synthesis approach to compile available information about urban stormwater retention capacity of the most common sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) in different climatic conditions. Those SUDS targeting stormwater management through water retention and removal solutions (mainly by infiltration, overland flow and evapotranspiration), were addressed in this study. Selected SUDS were green roofs, bioretention systems (i.e. rain gardens), buffer and filter strips, vegetated swales, constructed wetlands, and water-pervious pavements. We found that despite a vast amount of data available from real-life applications and research results, there is a lack of decisive information about stormwater retention and removal capacity of selected SUDS. The available data show large variability in performance across different climatic conditions. It is therefore a challenge to set conclusive widely applicable guidelines for SUDS implementation based on available water retention data. Adequate data were available only to evaluate the water retention capacity of green roofs (average 56±20%) and we provide a comprehensive review on this function. However, as with other SUDS, still the same problem of high variability in the performance (min 11% and max 99% of retention) remains. This limits our ability to determine the capacity of green roofs to support better planning and wider implementation across climate zones. The further development of SUDS to support urban stormwater retention should be informed by and developed concurrently with the adaptation strategies to cope with climate change, especially with increasing frequency of extreme precipitation events that lead to high volumes of stormwater runoff

Mental illness and COVID-19 vaccination: a multinational investigation of observational & register-based data

Individuals with mental illness are at higher risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. However, previous studies on the uptake of COVID-19 vaccination in this population have reported conflicting results. Using data from seven cohort studies (N = 325,298) included in the multinational COVIDMENT consortium, and the Swedish registers (N = 8,080,234), this study investigates the association between mental illness (defined using self-report measures, clinical diagnosis and prescription data) and COVID-19 vaccination uptake. Results from the COVIDMENT cohort studies were pooled using meta-analyses, the majority of which showed no significant association between mental illness and vaccination uptake. In the Swedish register study population, we observed a very small reduction in the uptake of both the first and second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine among individuals with vs. without mental illness; the reduction was however greater among those not using psychiatric medication. Here we show that uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine is generally high among individuals both with and without mental illness, however the lower levels of vaccination uptake observed among subgroups of individuals with unmedicated mental illness warrants further attention

Mental illness and COVID-19 vaccination: a multinational investigation of observational & register-based data

publishedVersionpublishedVersio

Mental illness and COVID-19 vaccination: a multinational investigation of observational & register-based data

Individuals with mental illness are at higher risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. However, previous studies on the uptake of COVID-19 vaccination in this population have reported conflicting results. Using data from seven cohort studies (N = 325,298) included in the multinational COVIDMENT consortium, and the Swedish registers (N = 8,080,234), this study investigates the association between mental illness (defined using self-report measures, clinical diagnosis and prescription data) and COVID-19 vaccination uptake. Results from the COVIDMENT cohort studies were pooled using meta-analyses, the majority of which showed no significant association between mental illness and vaccination uptake. In the Swedish register study population, we observed a very small reduction in the uptake of both the first and second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine among individuals with vs. without mental illness; the reduction was however greater among those not using psychiatric medication. Here we show that uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine is generally high among individuals both with and without mental illness, however the lower levels of vaccination uptake observed among subgroups of individuals with unmedicated mental illness warrants further attention

Acute COVID-19 severity and mental health morbidity trajectories in patient populations of six nations:An observational study

BACKGROUND: Long-term mental and physical health consequences of COVID-19 (long COVID) are a persistent public health concern. Little is still known about the long-term mental health of non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 with varying illness severities. Our aim was to assess the prevalence of adverse mental health symptoms among individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 in the general population by acute infection severity up to 16 months after diagnosis.METHODS: This observational follow-up study included seven prospectively planned cohorts across six countries (Denmark, Estonia, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and the UK). Participants were recruited from March 27, 2020, to Aug 13, 2021. Individuals aged 18 years or older were eligible to participate. In a cross-sectional analysis, we contrasted symptom prevalence of depression, anxiety, COVID-19-related distress, and poor sleep quality (screened with validated mental health instruments) among individuals with and without a diagnosis of COVID-19 at entry, 0-16 months from diagnosis. In a cohort analysis, we further used repeated measures to estimate the change in mental health symptoms before and after COVID-19 diagnosis.FINDINGS: The analytical cohort consisted of 247 249 individuals, 9979 (4·0%) of whom were diagnosed with COVID-19 during the study period. Mean follow-up was 5·65 months (SD 4·26). Participants diagnosed with COVID-19 presented overall with a higher prevalence of symptoms of depression (prevalence ratio [PR] 1·18 [95% CI 1·03-1·36]) and poorer sleep quality (1·13 [1·03-1·24]) but not symptoms of anxiety (0·97 [0·91-1·03]) or COVID-19-related distress (1·05 [0·93-1·20]) compared with individuals without a COVID-19 diagnosis. Although the prevalence of depression and COVID-19-related distress attenuated with time, individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 but never bedridden due to their illness were consistently at lower risk of depression (PR 0·83 [95% CI 0·75-0·91]) and anxiety (0·77 [0·63-0·94]) than those not diagnosed with COVID-19, whereas patients who were bedridden for more than 7 days were persistently at higher risk of symptoms of depression (PR 1·61 [95% CI 1·27-2·05]) and anxiety (1·43 [1·26-1·63]) than those not diagnosed throughout the study period.INTERPRETATION: Severe acute COVID-19 illness-indicated by extended time bedridden-is associated with long-term mental morbidity among recovering individuals in the general population. These findings call for increased vigilance of adverse mental health development among patients with a severe acute disease phase of COVID-19.FUNDING: Nordforsk, Horizon2020, Wellcome Trust, and Estonian Research Council

Genome-wide meta-analysis of ascertainment and symptom structures of major depression in case-enriched and community cohorts

Background. Diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder allow for heterogeneous symp-tom profiles but genetic analysis of major depressive symptoms has the potential to identify clinical and etiological subtypes. There are several challenges to integrating symptom data from genetically informative cohorts, such as sample size differences between clinical and community cohorts and various patterns of missing data. Methods. We conducted genome-wide association studies of major depressive symptoms in three cohorts that were enriched for participants with a diagnosis of depression (Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, Australian Genetics of Depression Study, Generation Scotland) and three community cohorts who were not recruited on the basis of diagnosis (Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, Estonian Biobank, and UK Biobank). We fit a series of confirmatory factor models with factors that accounted for how symptom data was sampled and then compared alternative models with different symptom factors. Results. The best fitting model had a distinct factor for Appetite/Weight symptoms and an additional measurement factor that accounted for the skip-structure in community cohorts (use of Depression and Anhedonia as gating symptoms). Conclusion. The results show the importance of assessing the directionality of symptoms (such as hypersomnia versus insomnia) and of accounting for study and measurement design when meta-analyzing genetic association data

Genome-wide meta-analysis of ascertainment and symptom structures of major depression in case-enriched and community cohorts

Background Diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder allow for heterogeneous symptom profiles but genetic analysis of major depressive symptoms has the potential to identify clinical and etiological subtypes. There are several challenges to integrating symptom data from genetically informative cohorts, such as sample size differences between clinical and community cohorts and various patterns of missing data. Methods We conducted genome-wide association studies of major depressive symptoms in three cohorts that were enriched for participants with a diagnosis of depression (Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, Australian Genetics of Depression Study, Generation Scotland) and three community cohorts who were not recruited on the basis of diagnosis (Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, Estonian Biobank, and UK Biobank). We fit a series of confirmatory factor models with factors that accounted for how symptom data was sampled and then compared alternative models with different symptom factors. Results The best fitting model had a distinct factor for Appetite/Weight symptoms and an additional measurement factor that accounted for the skip-structure in community cohorts (use of Depression and Anhedonia as gating symptoms). Conclusion The results show the importance of assessing the directionality of symptoms (such as hypersomnia versus insomnia) and of accounting for study and measurement design when meta-analyzing genetic association data