| Literature DB >> 34327409 |
Tao Xue1, Tianjia Guan2, Yixuan Zheng3, Guannan Geng4, Qiang Zhang5, Yao Yao6, Tong Zhu7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Air pollutants, particularly fine particulate matters (PM2.5) have been associated with mental disorder such as depression. Clean air policy (CAP, i.e., a series of emission-control actions) has been shown to reduce the public health burden of air pollutions. There were few studies on the health effects of CAP on mental health, particularly, in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We investigated the association between a stringent CAP and depressive symptoms among general adults in China.Entities:
Keywords: Air pollution; China; Clean air policy; Depressive symptoms; Mental health
Year: 2020 PMID: 34327409 PMCID: PMC8315430 DOI: 10.1016/j.lanwpc.2020.100079
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Lancet Reg Health West Pac ISSN: 2666-6065
Fig. 1Map of study region with long-term averages of PM2.5 concentrations (2010–2015). Small islands or areas with missing data are not displayed in this map.
Constant variables of the studied subjects.
| Variable | Subgroup | Number of subjects (percentage of the total) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| All subjects | Subjects with three measurements | ||
| Total number of subjects | 15,954 (100%) | 9123 (100%) | |
| Education | Below elementary | 6133 (38.44%) | 3786 (41.50%) |
| Elementary and middle | 6099 (38.23%) | 4220 (46.26%) | |
| Above middle | 1712 (10.73%) | 1117 (12.24%) | |
| Unknown | 2010 (12.60%) | 0 | |
| Sex | Female | 8331 (52.22%) | 4702 (51.54%) |
| Male | 7621 (47.77%) | 4421 (48.46%) | |
| Unknown | 2 (0.01%) | 0 | |
| Place of residence | Rural | 9765 (61.21%) | 5748 (63.01%) |
| Urban | 6189 (38.79%) | 3375 (36.99%) | |
| Region | Midwest | 5367 (33.64%) | 3152 (34.55%) |
| North | 4451 (27.90%) | 2586 (28.34%) | |
| Southeast | 6136 (38.46%) | 3385 (37.10%) | |
Longitudinal variables of the studied subjects.
| Total | 2011 CHARLS* | 2013 CHARLS | 2015 CHARLS | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Mean (standard deviation) | ||||
| Depression score | 8.1 (6.2) | 8.3 (6.3) | 7.8 (5.8) | 8.1 (6.4) | |
| PM2.5 concentration (µg/m3) | 58.2 (19.8) | 61.6 (18.9) | 60.3 (22.2) | 53.1 (16.7) | |
| Temperature ( °C) | 14.0 (5.3) | 13.6 (5.2) | 13.9 (5.6) | 14.4 (5.0) | |
| Age (years) | 60.5 (9.3) | 59.2 (9.2) | 60.3 (9.4) | 61.9 (9.2) | |
| Variable | Subgroup | Number of visits (percentage of the total) | |||
| Total number of visits | 41,031 (100%) | 12,658 (100%) | 14,352 (100%) | 14,021 (100%) | |
| Married | No | 6727 (16.39%) | 1964 (15.52%) | 2276 (15.86%) | 2487 (17.74%) |
| Yes | 34,303 (83.60%) | 10,694 (84.48%) | 12,076 (84.14%) | 11,533 (82.26%) | |
| Unknown | 1 (0.00%) | 0 | 0 | 1 (0.01%) | |
| Smoking | No | 28,422 (69.27%) | 8797 (69.50%) | 9970 (69.47%) | 9655 (68.86%) |
| Yes | 12,608 (30.73%) | 3861 (30.50%) | 4381 (30.53%) | 4366 (31.14%) | |
| Unknown | 1 (0.00%) | 0 | 1 (0.01%) | 0 | |
| Drinking | Frequent | 10,944 (26.67%) | 3238 (25.58%) | 3934 (27.41%) | 3772 (26.90%) |
| Rare | 3312 (8.07%) | 977 (7.72%) | 1140 (7.94%) | 1195 (8.52%) | |
| Never | 26,758 (65.21%) | 8443 (66.70%) | 9266 (64.56%) | 9049 (64.54%) | |
| Unknown | 17 (0.04%) | 0 | 12 (0.08%) | 5 (0.04%) | |
| Cooking energy type | Clean | 21,257 (51.81%) | 5548 (43.83%) | 7686 (53.55%) | 8023 (57.22%) |
| Unclean | 19,292 (47.02%) | 6965 (55.02%) | 6512 (45.37%) | 5815 (41.47%) | |
| Unknown | 482 (1.17%) | 145 (1.15%) | 154 (1.07%) | 183 (1.31%) | |
| Building type | One story | 23,683 (57.72%) | 7884 (62.28%) | 8684 (60.51%) | 7115 (50.75%) |
| Multi-story | 17,159 (41.82%) | 4722 (37.30%) | 5614 (39.12%) | 6823 (48.66%) | |
| Unknown | 189 (0.46%) | 52 (0.41%) | 54 (0.38%) | 83 (0.59%) | |
| Rent payment for residence | No | 39,353 (95.91%) | 12,289 (97.08%) | 13,734 (95.69%) | 13,330 (95.07%) |
| Yes | 1200 (2.92%) | 285 (2.25%) | 457 (3.18%) | 458 (3.27%) | |
| Unknown | 478 (1.16%) | 84 (0.66%) | 161 (1.12%) | 233 (1.66%) | |
| In-house telephone | No | 24,798 (60.44%) | 6350 (50.17%) | 8482 (59.10%) | 9966 (71.08%) |
| Yes | 16,122 (39.29%) | 6262 (49.47%) | 5823 (40.57%) | 4037 (28.79%) | |
| Unknown | 111 (0.27%) | 46 (0.36%) | 47 (0.33%) | 18 (0.13%) | |
| Indoor temperature maintenance | Very hot | 412 (1.00%) | 254 (2.01%) | 74 (0.52%) | 84 (0.60%) |
| Hot | 3573 (8.71%) | 1345 (10.63%) | 1134 (7.90%) | 1094 (7.80%) | |
| Bearable | 34,561 (84.23%) | 10,491 (82.88%) | 12,189 (84.93%) | 11,881 (84.74%) | |
| Cold | 1342 (3.27%) | 436 (3.44%) | 516 (3.60%) | 390 (2.78%) | |
| Very cold | 102 (0.25%) | 63 (0.50%) | 23 (0.16%) | 16 (0.11%) | |
| Unknown | 1041 (2.54%) | 69 (0.55%) | 416 (2.90%) | 556 (3.97%) | |
*CHARLS, China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study.
Fig. 2Estimated associations between the depression score and PM2.5 concentration. In the difference-in-difference (DID) analysis, the model adjusted for age incorporated age at 2011 as a covariate; the standard adjustment also involved the fixed variables of urban/rural residence, sex, and education, as well as the longitudinal variables of ambient temperature, marriage status, smoking, and drinking. The full adjustment also considered longitudinal changes in cooking energy type, building type, residential rent payment, presence of an in-house telephone, and indoor temperature maintenance. The longitudinal models adjusted for the constant variables in a similar manner as in the DID models; however, adjustment of the longitudinal variables was based on the values recorded in each survey wave, rather than their between-wave changes therein.
Fig. 3Nonlinear effects of (a) PM2.5 concentration and (b) age on the CES-d-10 score. Dashed lines, pointwise 95% confidence intervals. The histograms show the distribution of PM2.5 exposure and age.
Fig. 4Impacts of reducing PM2.5 concentration, aging, and changes in other factors on the CES-d-10 score. The changes in risk factors (Δx) were evaluated using a fixed group of subjects who participated in all three China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS) waves; the corresponding coefficients were estimated from the longitudinal model with standard adjustment (Fig. 2) and presented in Table S3; for each variable, the value in 2011 was acted the reference to evaluate the impact attributable to its temporal changes.