Dataset Information

Implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on self-reported health status and noise annoyance in rural and non-rural Canada.

ABSTRACT: The Canadian Perspectives on Environmental Noise Survey (CPENS), conducted between April 12th, 2021 and May 25th, 2021 coincided with the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Canadians 18 years of age and older (n = 6647) reported the degree to which the pandemic affected their physical health, mental health, stress, annoyance toward environmental and indoor noise, and overall well-being. Depending on the outcome evaluated, between 18 and 67% of respondents reported the measure as "somewhat" or "much worse" due to the pandemic. Stress was most affected, followed by mental health, overall well-being, physical health, annoyance toward environmental noise and annoyance toward indoor noise. Logistic regression models indicated that province, geographic region (rural/remote, suburban, urban), age, gender, poor physical/mental health, heart disease, a history of high sleep disturbance (in general) or diagnosed sleep disorders, anxiety/depression, working/schooling from home, and being retired significantly impacted the odds of reporting a worsening by the pandemic to varying degrees and directions, depending on the outcome. Indigenous status was unrelated to any of the modelled outcomes. Future research could address some of the noted study limitations and provide the data to determine if the observations on the reported measures of health are temporary, or long-lasting.

SUBMITTER: Michaud DS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9509391 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on self-reported health status and noise annoyance in rural and non-rural Canada.

Michaud David S DS Marro Leonora L Denning Allison A Shackleton Shelley S Toutant Nicolas N Cameron-Blake Emily E McNamee James P JP

Scientific reports 20220924 1

The Canadian Perspectives on Environmental Noise Survey (CPENS), conducted between April 12th, 2021 and May 25th, 2021 coincided with the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Canadians 18 years of age and older (n = 6647) reported the degree to which the pandemic affected their physical health, mental health, stress, annoyance toward environmental and indoor noise, and overall well-being. Depending on the outcome evaluated, between 18 and 67% of respondents reported the measure as "somewhat" or ...[more]

PMID: 36153388

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies reported an association between transportation noise and self-reported health status (SRHS). They also suggested a mediating role of noise annoyance using conventional statistical methods. These methods are subject to bias in longitudinal studies with time-dependent exposure, mediator and confounding factors. This study aims to investigate the mediating role of aircraft noise annoyance in the effect of aircraft noise on SRHS using a causal inference approach to address time-dependent variables issues.MethodsWe used data from 881 participants in all three visits in the DEBATS longitudinal study conducted around three French airports. Participants over 18 years of age reported their self-perceived health status, aircraft noise annoyance, and noise sensitivity by completing a questionnaire at three visits in 2013, 2015 and 2017. Noise maps were used to estimate aircraft noise levels outside their homes. Marginal structural models with inverse probability weighting were used to estimate the total effect of aircraft noise levels on SRHS and its decomposition into direct and indirect effect through aircraft noise annoyance.ResultsThis study showed a deleterious effect of aircraft noise on SRHS. The odds ratio (OR) corresponding to the total effect and comparing the highest aircraft noise category (≥60 dBA) to the reference category (<50 dBA) was significant (ORpoor/fair_SHRS = 1.25 (95%CI: 1.06 to 2.08)). It also showed no direct effect of aircraft noise levels on SRHS, but an indirect effect through annoyance. This indirect effect increased as aircraft noise levels increased, with a statistically significant OR when comparing the highest noise category (≥60 dBA) to the lowest (<50 dBA) (ORpoor/fair_SHRS = 1.16 (95%CI: 1.03 to 1.52)). Nearly 66% of aircraft noise's effect on SRHS was mediated by aircraft noise annoyance.ConclusionThis study supports the deleterious causal effect of aircraft noise on SRHS. The results highlight the important mediating role of aircraft noise annoyance in the causal pathway from exposure to aircraft noise to poor/fair SRHS.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Surveys are a common way to measure annoyance due to road traffic noise, but the method has some draw-backs. Survey context, question wording and answer alternatives could affect participation and answers and could have implications when comparing studies and/or performing pooled analyses. The aim of this study was to investigate the difference in annoyance reporting due to road traffic noise in two types of surveys of which one was introduced broadly and the other with the clearly stated aim of investigating noise and health. METHODS: Data was collected from two surveys carried out in the municipality of Malmö, southern Sweden in 2007 and 2008 (n = 2612 and n = 3810). The first survey stated an aim of investigating residential environmental exposure, especially noise and health. The second survey was a broad public health survey stating a broader aim. The two surveys had comparable questions regarding noise annoyance, although one used a 5-point scale and the other a 4-point scale. We used geographic information systems (GIS) to assess the average road and railway noise (LAeq,24h) at the participants' residential address. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios for annoyance in relation to noise exposure. RESULTS: Annoyance at least once a week due to road traffic noise was significantly more prevalent in the survey investigating environment and health compared to the public health survey at levels > 45 dB(A), but not at lower exposure levels. However no differences in annoyance were found when comparing the extreme alternatives "never" and "every day". In the study investigating environment and health, "Noise sensitive" persons were more likely to readily respond to the survey and were more annoyed by road traffic noise compared to the other participants in that survey. CONCLUSIONS: The differences in annoyance reporting between the two surveys were mainly due to different scales, suggesting that extreme alternatives are to prefer before dichotomization when comparing results between the two. Although some findings suggested that noise-sensitive individuals were more likely to respond to the survey investigating noise and health, we could not find convincing evidence that contextual differences affected either answers or participation.

Project description:BackgroundBoth physical and psychological health outcomes have been associated with exposure to environmental noise. Noise sensitivity could have the same moderating effect on physical and psychological health outcomes related to environmental noise exposure as on annoyance but this has been little tested.MethodsA cohort of 2398 men between 45 and 59 years, the longitudinal Caerphilly Collaborative Heart Disease study, was established in 1984/88 and followed into the mid-1990s. Road traffic noise maps were assessed at baseline. Psychological ill-health was measured in phase 2 in 1984/88, phase 3 (1989/93) and phase 4 (1993/7). Ischaemic heart disease was measured in clinic at baseline and through hospital records and records of deaths during follow up. We examined the longitudinal associations between road traffic noise and ischaemic heart disease morbidity and mortality using Cox Proportional Hazard Models and psychological ill-health using Logistic Regression; we also examined whether noise sensitivity and noise annoyance might moderate these associations. We also tested if noise sensitivity and noise annoyance were longitudinal predictors of ischaemic heart disease morbidity and mortality and psychological ill-health.ResultsRoad traffic noise was not associated with ischaemic heart disease morbidity or mortality. Neither noise sensitivity nor noise annoyance moderated the effects of road traffic noise on ischaemic heart disease morbidity or mortality. High noise sensitivity was associated with lower ischaemic heart disease mortality risk (HR = 0.74, 95%CI 0.57, 0.97). Road traffic noise was associated with Phase 4 psychological ill-health but only among those exposed to 56-60dBA (fully adjusted OR = 1.82 95%CI 1.07, 3.07). Noise sensitivity moderated the association of road traffic noise exposure with psychological ill-health. High noise sensitivity was associated longitudinally with psychological ill-health at phase 3 (OR = 1.85 95%CI 1.23, 2.78) and phase 4 (OR = 1.65 95%CI 1.09, 2.50). Noise annoyance predicted psychological ill-health at phase 4 (OR = 2.47 95%CI 1.00, 6.13).ConclusionsNoise sensitivity is a specific predictor of psychological ill-health and may be part of a wider construct of environmental susceptibility. Noise sensitivity may increase the risk of psychological ill-health when exposed to road traffic noise. Noise annoyance may be a mediator of the effects of road traffic noise on psychological ill-health.

Project description:BackgroundIn 2004, hog farming operations were introduced in the village of Sarsfield in the eastern part of Ottawa, Canada. This study evaluates the health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and the prevalence of respiratory conditions among adults and children who lived in proximity to this farm.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was administered to a random sample of residents from seven rural communities in the eastern part of Ottawa, Canada. We analyzed self-reported questionnaire data obtained from 723 adults and 285 children/adolescents. HRQOL was assessed using the SF-36 survey instrument, while data were also collected for sociodemographic characteristics, the prevalence of selected health conditions, and lifestyle related behaviours (e.g., smoking) of participants. Variations in self-reported health according to the residential distance to the hog farm were evaluated using logistic regression and analysis of variance methods.ResultsFor the most part, the prevalence of selected health conditions among adults and children was not associated with how far they lived from the farm. No associations were observed with migraines, respiratory conditions (asthma, rhinitis, sinusitis, and chronic bronchitis), and allergies. However, a higher prevalence of depression was noted among those who lived within 3 km of the farm relative to those who lived more than 9 km away (odds ratio = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.11, 3.65). Furthermore, individuals who lived closer to the IHF were more likely to worry about environmental issues such as water quality, outdoor and indoor smells, and air pollution. This level of worry also contributed to lower HRQOL scores for individuals who lived closer to the farm. It was also observed that the prevalence of depression was much higher among those who indicated a concern about environmental issues (18.2%) when compared to those who did not (8.0%).ConclusionWhile our findings suggest that living in close proximity to an IHF may adversely affect HRQOL these should be interpreted cautiously due to a lack of direct measures of environmental exposures, and possible biases inherent in the use of self-reported health measures.

Dataset Information

Implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on self-reported health status and noise annoyance in rural and non-rural Canada.

Publications

Implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on self-reported health status and noise annoyance in rural and non-rural Canada.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets