8 research outputs found

    Increased genetic contribution to wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic

    Get PDF
    Physical and mental health are determined by an interplay between nature, for example genetics, and nurture, which encompasses experiences and exposures that can be short or long-lasting. The COVID-19 pandemic represents a unique situation in which whole communities were suddenly and simultaneously exposed to both the virus and the societal changes required to combat the virus. We studied 27,537 population-based biobank participants for whom we have genetic data and extensive longitudinal data collected via 19 questionnaires over 10 months, starting in March 2020. This allowed us to explore the interaction between genetics and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on individuals' wellbeing over time. We observe that genetics affected many aspects of wellbeing, but also that its impact on several phenotypes changed over time. Over the course of the pandemic, we observed that the genetic predisposition to life satisfaction had an increasing influence on perceived quality of life. We also estimated heritability and the proportion of variance explained by shared environment using variance components methods based on pedigree information and household composition. The results suggest that people's genetic constitution manifested more prominently over time, potentially due to social isolation driven by strict COVID-19 containment measures. Overall, our findings demonstrate that the relative contribution of genetic variation to complex phenotypes is dynamic rather than static

    Increases in symptoms of depression and anxiety in adults during the initial phases of the COVID-19 pandemic are limited to those with less resources: Results from the Lifelines Cohort Study

    No full text
    BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic may have a differential impact on mental health based on an individual's capital, i.e. resources available to maintain and enhance health. We assessed trajectories of depression and anxiety symptoms, and their association with different elements of capital. METHODS: Data on 65,854 individuals (mean baseline age = 50·4 (SD = 12·0) years) from the Lifelines COVID-19 cohort were used. Baseline mental health symptoms were on average measured 4.7 (SD = 1·1) years before the first COVID-19 measurement wave, and subsequent waves were (bi)weekly (March 30─August 05, 2020). Mental health symptom trajectories were estimated using a two-part Latent Class Growth Analysis. Class membership was predicted by economic (education, income, and occupation) and person capital (neuroticism, poor health condition, and obesity) FINDINGS: Most individuals were unlikely to report symptoms of depression (80·6%) or anxiety (75·9%), but stable-high classes were identified for both conditions (1·6% and 6·7%, respectively). The stable-high depression class saw the greatest increase in symptoms after COVID, and the stable-high anxiety class reported an increase in the probability of reporting symptoms after COVID. At the first COVID-measurement, the mean number of symptoms increased compared to baseline (depression:4·7 vs 4·1; anxiety:4·3 vs 4·2); the probability of reporting symptoms also increased (depression:0·96 vs 0·65; anxiety:0·92 vs 0·70). Membership in these classes was generally predicted by less capital, especially person capital; odds ratios for person capital ranged from 1·10-2·22 for depression and 1·08-1·51 for anxiety. INTERPRETATION: A minority of individuals, possessing less capital, reported an increase in symptoms of depression or anxiety after COVID. FUNDING: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors

    Workplace impact on employees::A Lifelines Corona Research Initiative on the return to work

    No full text
    A large proportion of the global workforce migrated home during the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdowns. It remains unclear what the exact differences between home workers and non-home workers were, especially during the pandemic when a return to work was imminent. How were building, workplace, and related facilities associated with workers’ perceptions and health? What are the lessons to be learned? Lifelines Corona Research Initiative was used to compare employees’ workplaces and related concerns, facilities, work quality, and health in a complete case analysis (N = 12,776) when return to work was imminent. Mann-Whitney U, logistic regression, and Wilcoxon matched-pairs were used for analyses. Notwithstanding small differences, the results show that home workers had less favourable scores for concerns about and facilities of on-site buildings and workplaces upon return to work, but better scores for work quality and health than non-home workers. However, additional analyses also suggest that building, workplace, and related facilities may have had the capacity to positively influence employees’ affective responses and work quality, but not always their health

    Workplace impact on employees:: A Lifelines Corona Research Initiative on the return to work

    No full text
    A large proportion of the global workforce migrated home during the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdowns. It remains unclear what the exact differences between home workers and non-home workers were, especially during the pandemic when a return to work was imminent. How were building, workplace, and related facilities associated with workers’ perceptions and health? What are the lessons to be learned? Lifelines Corona Research Initiative was used to compare employees’ workplaces and related concerns, facilities, work quality, and health in a complete case analysis (N = 12,776) when return to work was imminent. Mann-Whitney U, logistic regression, and Wilcoxon matched-pairs were used for analyses. Notwithstanding small differences, the results show that home workers had less favourable scores for concerns about and facilities of on-site buildings and workplaces upon return to work, but better scores for work quality and health than non-home workers. However, additional analyses also suggest that building, workplace, and related facilities may have had the capacity to positively influence employees’ affective responses and work quality, but not always their health

    Data_Sheet_1_The mediating role of physical activity and sedentary behavior in the association between working from home and musculoskeletal pain during the COVID-19 pandemic.pdf

    No full text
    IntroductionWorking from home during the COVID-19 pandemic has been associated both with physical inactivity and musculoskeletal pain. However, it has not been examined whether physical activity and sedentary behavior are underlying mechanisms in the association between working from home and musculoskeletal pain. Therefore, we examined their mediating role in this association.MethodsData were used from 24 questionnaire rounds of the Lifelines COVID-19 cohort (March 2020–January 2022). Longitudinal information on work situation (location, home, hybrid), physical activity, sedentary behavior, and musculoskeletal pain was collected among 28,586 workers. Analysis of physical activity/sedentary behavior as mediators of the association between working from home and musculoskeletal pain was performed using multilevel structural equation modeling.ResultsHome workers more often had pain in the upper back [odds ratio (OR) = 1.17, 95%-confidence interval (CI) = 1.02–1.34] and arm, neck, and/or shoulder (ANS) (OR = 1.32, 95%-CI = 1.19–1.47) than location workers. Furthermore, home workers were more often sedentary for >9 h per work day than location workers (OR = 2.82, 95%-CI = 2.56–3.09), and being more sedentary was associated with musculoskeletal pain (upper back: OR = 1.17, 95%-CI = 1.06–1.30; ANS: OR = 1.25, 95%-CI = 1.16–1.34). Corresponding indirect effects were OR = 1.18 (95%-CI = 1.04–1.33) and OR = 1.26 (95%-CI = 1.12–1.35). No indirect effect was found for physical activity. Similar indirect effects were observed for hybrid workers.ConclusionHome and hybrid workers were more likely to have pain in the upper musculoskeletal system during the COVID-19 pandemic than location workers, which was partly mediated by increased sedentary behavior, but not by reduced physical activity. Measures to reduce sedentary time in home workers may contribute to preventing musculoskeletal pain.</p

    Night-shift work is associated with increased susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection

    No full text
    Night-shift workers experience disturbances of their circadian rhythm and sleep, which may make them more susceptible to infectious diseases. Therefore, we studied whether night-shift workers are at higher risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection than day workers. In this prospective study, data were used from 20 questionnaire rounds of the Dutch Lifelines COVID-19 cohort that was initiated in March 2020. In the different questionnaire rounds, 2285 night-shift workers and 23,766 day workers reported whether they had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for demographic, work, and health covariates were used to compare SARS-CoV-2 incidence between night-shift and day workers. From March 2020-January 2021, 3.4% of night-shift workers and 2.2% of day workers reported to have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (p < .001). After adjustment for covariates, night-shift workers had a 37% higher risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (hazard ratio: 1.37, 95% confidence interval: 1.05-1.77). In this study, we show that night-shift workers were more likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 than day workers, which adds to the growing evidence that night-shift work may influence the complex processes involved in infection susceptibility. Further mechanistic insight is needed to understand the relation between night-shift work and (SARS-CoV-2) infection susceptibility

    Night-shift work is associated with increased susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

    Get PDF
    Night-shift workers experience disturbances of their circadian rhythm and sleep, which may make them more susceptible to infectious diseases. Therefore, we studied whether night-shift workers are at higher risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection than day workers. In this prospective study, data were used from 20 questionnaire rounds of the Dutch Lifelines COVID-19 cohort that was initiated in March 2020. In the different questionnaire rounds, 2285 night-shift workers and 23,766 day workers reported whether they had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for demographic, work, and health covariates were used to compare SARS-CoV-2 incidence between night-shift and day workers. From March 2020-January 2021, 3.4% of night-shift workers and 2.2% of day workers reported to have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (p < .001). After adjustment for covariates, night-shift workers had a 37% higher risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (hazard ratio: 1.37, 95% confidence interval: 1.05-1.77). In this study, we show that night-shift workers were more likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 than day workers, which adds to the growing evidence that night-shift work may influence the complex processes involved in infection susceptibility. Further mechanistic insight is needed to understand the relation between night-shift work and (SARS-CoV-2) infection susceptibility

    A positive neighborhood walkability is associated with a higher magnitude of leisure walking in adults upon COVID-19 restrictions: a longitudinal cohort study

    No full text
    Abstract Background Previous cross-sectional and longitudinal observational studies revealed positive relationships between contextual built environment components and walking behavior. Due to severe restrictions during COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns, physical activity was primarily performed within the immediate living area. Using this unique opportunity, we evaluated whether built environment components were associated with the magnitude of change in walking activity in adults during COVID-19 restrictions. Methods Data on self-reported demographic characteristics and walking behaviour were extracted from the prospective longitudinal Lifelines Cohort Study in the Netherlands of participants ≥ 18 years. For our analyses, we made use of the data acquired between 2014–2017 (n = 100,285). A fifth of the participants completed the questionnaires during COVID-19 restrictive policies in July 2021 (n = 20,806). Seven spatial components were calculated for a 500m and 1650m Euclidean buffer per postal code area in GIS: population density, retail and service destination density, land use mix, street connectivity, green space density, sidewalk density, and public transport stops. Additionally, the walkability index (WI) of these seven components was calculated. Using multivariable linear regression analyses, we analyzed the association between the WI (and separate components) and the change in leisure walking minutes/week. Included demographic variables were age, gender, BMI, education, net income, occupation status, household composition and the season in which the questionnaire was filled in. Results The average leisure walking time strongly increased by 127 min/week upon COVID-19 restrictions. All seven spatial components of the WI were significantly associated with an increase in leisure walking time; a 10% higher score in the individual spatial component was associated with 5 to 8 more minutes of leisure walking/week. Green space density at the 500m Euclidean buffer and side-walk density at the 1650m Euclidean buffer were associated with the highest increase in leisure walking time/week. Subgroup analysis revealed that the built environment showed its strongest impact on leisure walking time in participants not engaging in leisure walking before the COVID-19 pandemic, compared to participants who already engaged in leisure walking before the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions These results provide strong evidence that the built environment, corrected for individual-level characteristics, directly links to changes observed in leisure walking time during COVID-19 restrictions. Since this relation was strongest in those who did not engage in leisure walking before the COVID-19 pandemic, our results encourage new perspectives in health promotion and urban planning
    corecore