Since the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak a pandemic on 11 March, severe lockdown measures have been adopted by the Italian Government. For over two months of stay-at-home orders, houses became the only place where people slept, ate, worked, practiced sports, and socialized. As consolidated evidence exists on housing as a determinant of health, it is of great interest to explore the impact that COVID-19 response-related lockdown measures have had on mental health and well-being. We conducted a large web-based survey on 8177 students from a university institute in Milan, Northern Italy, one of the regions most heavily hit by the pandemic in Europe. As emerged from our analysis, poor housing is associated with increased risk of depressive symptoms during lockdown. In particular, living in apartments <60 m² with poor views and scarce indoor quality is associated with, respectively, 1.31 (95% CI: 1046–1637), 1.368 (95% CI: 1166–1605), and 2.253 (95% CI: 1918–2647) times the risk of moderate–severe and severe depressive symptoms. Subjects reporting worsened working performance from home were over four times more likely to also report depression (OR = 4.28, 95% CI: 3713–4924). Housing design strategies should focus on larger and more livable living spaces facing green areas. We argue that a strengthened multi-interdisciplinary approach, involving urban planning, public mental health, environmental health, epidemiology, and sociology, is needed to investigate the effects of the built environment on mental health, so as to inform welfare and housing policies centered on population well-being.

The COVID-19 pandemic has upended the global healthcare systems. The surge in infections and sick critically ill patients has tested the resilience of healthcare infrastructures and facilities forcing organizations to quickly adapt and embrace emergency solutions. The paper proposes a decalogue of design strategies applicable both to new hospitals and to the refurbishment of existing hospitals. The authors conducted observations at hospitals, during public health webinars and through experts working groups from March to May 2020. In this commentary, the authors present a list of strategies for creating critical care surge capacity and exploring design strategies for healthcare design for resilient hospital facilities. The strategies are organized into two tiers: I) design and II) operations. The (I) Design phase strategies are: 1) Strategic Site Location; 2) Typology Configuration; 3) Flexibility; 4) Functional program; 5) User-centerdness. The (II) Operation phase strategies are: 6) Healthcare network on the territory; 7) Patient safety; 8) HVAC and indoor air quality; 9) Innovative finishing materials and furniture; 10) Healthcare digital innovation. Hospitals, health care systems, and institutions urgently need to assess their resources, identify potential bottlenecks, and create strategies for increasing critical care surge capacity. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted healthcare operations and accelerated the processes of innovation and transformation. The design and operational strategies can enable the achievement of resilient hospital facilities. Further multidisciplinary researches is needed to validate the strategies empirically.

Background: Prolonged university closures and social distancing-imposed measures due to the COVID-19 pandemic obliged students to at-home learning with online lectures and educational programs promoting potential social isolation, loneliness, hopelessness, and episodes of clinical decompensation.Methods: A web-based cross-sectional survey was carried out in a university institute in Milan, Northern Italy, to assess the COVID-19 lockdown impact on the mental health of the undergraduate students. We estimated the odds ratios (OR) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) using adjusted logistic regression models.Results: Of the 8,177 students, 12.8% reported depressive symptoms, 25.6% anxiety, 8.7% insomnia, and 10.6% reported impulsive tracts, with higher proportions among females than males. Mental health symptoms were positively associated with caring for a person at home, a poor housing quality, and a worsening in working performance. Among males compared with females, a poor housing quality showed a stronger positive association with depressive symptoms and impulsivity, and a worsening in the working performance was positively associated with depressive and anxiety symptoms. In addition, the absence of private space was positively associated with depression and anxiety, stronger among males than females.Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first multidisciplinary consortium study, involving public mental health, environmental health, and architectural design. Further studies are needed to confirm or refute our findings and consequent recommendations to implement well-being interventions in pandemic conditions.

Hospitals are complex, high-performance systems that demand continuous quality improvement. Several instruments evaluate the organizational or clinical qualities but very few focus on the built environment. The purpose of this paper is to compare and review the recent tools able to assess the hospital built environment and test how they measure health, sustainability, or both through Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE). A literature review has been conducted in the field of hospital quality assessment and 13 POE instruments have been included and analyzed through Ulrich’s Evidence-Based Design (EBD) framework. The percentage and the content of health or sustainability-related criteria have been compared and further discussed. Health related criteria the most recent tools are used three times more than in the tools developed in the nineties. The most used EBD criteria are safety enhancement (n = 131; 14%) and visual environment (n = 119; 13%). Although sustainability remains a relevant issue, today, growing attention is dedicated to the impact of built environment on occupant’s health. Further investigation is needed to understand the effectiveness of those instruments in practice.

Healthcare facilities are facing huge challenges due to the outbreak of COVID-19. Around the world, national healthcare contingency plans have struggled to cope with the population health impact of COVID-19, with healthcare facilities and critical care systems buckling under the extraordinary pressures. COVID-19 has starkly highlighted the lack of reliable operational tools for assessing the level sof flexibility of a hospital building to support strategic and agile decision making. The aim of this study was to modify, improve and test an existing assessment tool for evaluating hospital facilities flexibility and resilience. We followed a five-step process for collecting data by (i) doing a literature review about flexibility principles and strategies, (ii) reviewing healthcare design guidelines, (iii) examining international healthcare facilities case studies, (iv) conducting a critical review and optimization of the existing tool, and (v) assessing the usability of the evaluation tool. The new version of the OFAT framework (Optimized Flexibility Assessment Tool) is composed of nine evaluation parameters and subdivided into measurable variables with scores ranging from 0 to 10. The pilot testing of case studies enabled the assessment and verification the OFAT validity and reliability in support of decision makers in addressing flexibility of hospital design and/or operations. Healthcare buildings need to be designed and built based on principles of flexibility to accommodate current healthcare operations, adapting to time-sensitive physical transformations and responding to contemporary and future public health emergencies.

COVID-19 outbreak imposed rapid and severe public policies that consistently impacted the lifestyle habits and mental health of the general population. Despite vaccination, lockdown restrictions are still considered as potential measures to contrast COVID-19 variants spread in several countries. Recent studies have highlighted the impacts of lockdowns on the population’s mental health; however, the role of the indoor housing environment where people spent most of their time has rarely been considered. Data from 8177 undergraduate and graduate students were collected in a large, cross-sectional, web-based survey, submitted to a university in Northern Italy during the first lockdown period from 1 April to 1 May 2020. Logistic regression analysis showed significant associations between moderate and severe depression symptomatology (PHQ-9 scores ≥ 15), and houses with both poor indoor quality and small dimensions (OR = 4.132), either medium dimensions (OR = 3.249) or big dimensions (OR = 3.522). It was also found that, regardless of housing size, poor indoor quality is significantly associated with moderate–severe depressive symptomatology. Further studies are encouraged to explore the long-term impact of built environment parameter modifications on mental health, and therefore support housing and public health policies.