| Literature DB >> 35194360 |
Yi-An Liao1,2,3, Liliana Garcia-Mondragon1,2,3, Deniz Konac4,5, Xiaoxuan Liu6,7, Alex Ing8, Ran Goldblatt9, Le Yu6,10, Edward D Barker4.
Abstract
Nighttime Light Emission (NLE) is associated with diminished mental and physical health. The present study examines how NLE and associated urban features (e.g., air pollution, low green space) impact mental and physical wellbeing. We included 200,393 UK Biobank Cohort participants with complete data. The study was carried out in two steps. In Step1, we assessed the relationship between NLE, deprivation, pollution, green space, household poverty and mental and physical symptoms. In Step2, we examined the role of NLE on environment-symptom networks. We stratified participants into high and low NLE and used gaussian graphical model to identify nodes which bridged urban features and mental and physical health problems. We then compared the global strength of these networks in high vs low NLE. We found that higher NLE associated with higher air pollution, less green space, higher economic and neighborhood deprivation, higher household poverty and higher depressed mood, higher tiredness/lethargy and obesity (Rtraining_mean = 0.2624, P training_mean < .001; Rtest_mean = 0.2619, P test_mean < .001). We also found that the interaction between environmental risk factors and mental, physical problems (overall network connectivity) was higher in the high NLE network than in the low NLE network (t = 0.7896, P < .001). In areas with high NLE, economic deprivation, household poverty and waist circumference acted as bridge factors between the key urban features and mental health symptoms. In conclusion, NLE, urban features, household poverty and mental and physical symptoms are all interrelated. In areas with high NLE, urban features associate with mental and physical health problems at a greater magnitude than in areas with low NLE. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-022-02754-3.Entities:
Keywords: Depression; Network analysis; Nighttime Light Emission; Obesity; Urban features
Year: 2022 PMID: 35194360 PMCID: PMC8853344 DOI: 10.1007/s12144-022-02754-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Curr Psychol ISSN: 1046-1310
Fig. 1The NLE used in this study is the five-year mean NLE value (2006–2010). a) Geographical distribution of the samples (n = 200,393) in this study. b) The histogram of the samples (n = 200,393) based on the five-year mean NLE value
Fig. 2Conceptual framework of the analysis. 1. msCCA was conducted on NLE, 44 urban features and 23 individual wellbeing factors in the training set (n = 160,315). 2. In the training set, stability selection with random sparsity was conducted 1000 times. Six urban features and six individual wellbeing factors had non-zero loadings above 75% of the trials, and were considered as stable variables. The correlations between NLE, six stable Urban Features and six stable Individual Wellbeing Factors were computed. 3. The model was validated in the test set (n = 40,078), to ensure no overfitting had occurred. 4. Top 25% NLE samples and bottom 25% NLE samples were extracted from the test set for network analysis, to assess the difference between symptom network in high NLE and symptom network in low NLE
Demographics of the data sets
| Whole data | Training set | Test set | High NLE | Low NLE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | 200,393 | 160,315 | 40,078 | 10,020 | 10,020 |
| Gender (male) No.(%) | 99,218(49.51) | 79,294(49.46) | 19,924(49.71) | 5217(52.07) | 5026(50.16) |
| Age (SD) | 56.46(7.94) | 56.47(7.93) | 56.41(7.96) | 57.69(7.53) | 56.61(7.88) |
| Mean NLE(SD) | 53.46(13.00) | 53.48(13.00) | 53.41(12.99) | 59.79(7.03) | 36.90(13.70) |
| Qualifications No.(%) | |||||
| College/University | 69,983(34.92) | 55,865(34.85) | 14,118(35.23) | 3931(39.23) | 3566(35.59) |
| A level/AS levels | 24,191(12.07) | 19,350(12.07) | 4841(12.08) | 1074(10.72) | 1362(13.59) |
| O level/GCSEs | 45,475(22.69) | 36,433(22.73) | 9042(22.56) | 1927(19.23) | 2326(23.21) |
| CSEs | 10,897(5.44) | 8712(5.43) | 2185(5.45) | 453(4.52) | 504(5.03) |
| NVQ/HND/HNC | 13,480(6.73) | 10,792(6.73) | 2688(6.71) | 640(6.39) | 675(6.74) |
| Other qualifications | 9999(4.99) | 8047(5.02) | 1952(4.87) | 469(4.68) | 513(5.12) |
| None of above | 26,368(13.16) | 21,116(13.17) | 5252(13.10) | 1526(15.23) | 1074(10.72) |
| Partnership No.(%) | |||||
| Living alone | 29,050(14.50) | 23,241(14.50) | 5809(14.49) | 1898(18.94) | 1128(11.26) |
| Living with a partner | 158,665(79.18) | 126,984(79.21) | 31,681(79.05) | 7421(74.06) | 8366(83.49) |
| Household income No.(%) | |||||
| >£100,000 | 12,124(6.05) | 9647(6.02) | 2477(6.18) | 858(8.56) | 596(5.95) |
| £52,000 to £100,000 | 45,841(22.88) | 36,747(22.92) | 9094(22.69) | 2105(21.01) | 2491(24.86) |
| £30,000 to £51,999 | 55,278(27.58) | 44,071(27.49) | 11,207(27.96) | 2511(25.06) | 2971(29.65) |
| £18,000 to £29,999 | 50,528(25.21) | 40,436(25.22) | 10,092(25.18) | 2478(24.73) | 2549(25.44) |
| < £18,000 | 36,622(18.28) | 29,414(18.35) | 7208(17.98) | 2068(20.64) | 1413(14.10) |
Fig. 3The relationship between NLE, key urban features and diminished individual wellbeing. The values of Rtraining_X1_X2 and Rtest_X1_X2 correspond to the correlation coefficient between any pair of views, annotated with NL (NLE), UF (Key Urban Features) and IW (Individual Wellbeing). Rtraining_mean and Rtest_mean are the means of these three correlation coefficients in training set and test set
Fig. 4Environment-symptom networks for participants exposed to top 25% NLE (a) and bottom 25% NLE (b); Dpr: frequency of depressed mood in the last two weeks; Dis: frequency of unenthusiasm/disinterest in the last two weeks; Trd: frequency of tiredness/lethargy in the last two weeks; Nap: Nap during day; Wst: Waist circumference; AP: Air pollution; GS: Green space; ED: Economic deprivation; ND: Neighborhood deprivation; DE: Distance to education; DS: Distance to public services; PV: Household poverty