Increased time spent at home during COVID-19 exposed inequities in Australian housing quality and availability. Many Australians lack sufficient space to carry out activities shifted to their homes and the financial downturn rapidly increased stress around housing affordability. Research demonstrates living in unaffordable or poor-quality housing can negatively impact residents’ mental health. This study explores the mechanisms through which housing moderates COVID-19’s impact on mental health by analysing 2,065 Australians surveyed in mid-to-late 2020. Hierarchical linear regressions were used to examine associations between housing circumstances, neighbourhood belonging and mental-health outcomes (loneliness, depression, and anxiety), adjusted for demographics. Open-ended responses were analysed using thematic analysis and critical-realist epistemology. Feeling ‘trapped’ and ‘helpless’ because of insecure tenure or lack of money to improve housing conditions reduced participants’ sense of control. Inadequate space and noise adversely impacted participants’ well-being. Participants’ housing context – including amenities, natural spaces, and social connections – strongly impacted their emotional experiences. Safe, secure, and suitable housing is a known determinant of safety and physical health; this study suggests it is also a critical factor for Australians’ mental health. To improve mental health among the vulnerably-housed, future housing policy should not compromise on housing affordability, quality, space and access to nearby amenities.

Background: By 2050, the global population of adults 60 + will reach 2.1 billion, surging fastest in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). In response, the World Health Organization (WHO) has developed indicators of age-friendly urban environments, but these criteria have been challenging to apply in rural areas and LMIC. This study fills this gap by adapting the WHO indicators to such settings and assessing variation in their availability by community-level urbanness and country-level income. Methods: We used data from the Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study’s environmental-assessment tools, which integrated systematic social observation and ecometrics to reliably capture community-level environmental features associated with cardiovascular-disease risk factors. The results of a scoping review guided selection of 18 individual indicators across six distinct domains, with data available for 496 communities in 20 countries, including 382 communities (77%) in LMIC. Finally, we used both factor analysis of mixed data (FAMD) and multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) approaches to describe relationships between indicators and domains, as well as detailing the extent to which these relationships held true within groups defined by urbanness and income. Results: Together, the results of the FAMD and MTMM approaches indicated substantial variation in the relationship of individual indicators to each other and to broader domains, arguing against the development of an overall score and extending prior evidence demonstrating the need to adapt the WHO framework to the local context. Communities in high-income countries generally ranked higher across the set of indicators, but regular connections to neighbouring towns via bus (95%) and train access (76%) were most common in low-income countries. The greatest amount of variation by urbanness was seen in the number of streetscape-greenery elements (33 such elements in rural areas vs. 55 in urban), presence of traffic lights (18% vs. 67%), and home-internet availability (25% vs. 54%). Conclusions: This study indicates the extent to which environmental supports for healthy ageing may be less readily available to older adults residing in rural areas and LMIC and augments calls to tailor WHO’s existing indicators to a broader range of communities in order to achieve a critical aspect of distributional equity in an ageing world.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused an increase in anxiety and depression levels across broad populations. While anyone can be infected by the virus, the presence of certain chronic diseases has been shown to exacerbate the severity of the infection. There is a likelihood that knowledge of this information may lead to negative psychological impacts among people with chronic illness. We hypothesized that the pandemic has resulted in increased levels of anxiety and depression symptoms among people with chronic illness. We recruited 540 participants from the ongoing Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study in British Columbia, Canada. Participants were asked to fill out an online survey that included the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) to assess anxiety and depression symptoms. We tested our hypothesis using bivariate and multivariable linear regression models. Out of 540 participants, 15% showed symptoms of anxiety and 17% reported symptoms of depression. We found no significant associations between having a pre-existing chronic illness and reporting higher levels of anxiety or depression symptoms during COVID-19. Our results do not support the hypothesis that having a chronic illness is associated with greater anxiety or depression symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our results were similar to one study but in contrast with other studies that found a positive association between the presence of chronic illness and developing anxiety or depression during this pandemic.