Location, Location, Location: The Role of Objective Neighborhood Characteristics for Perceptions of Control

My home-my castle? Self-reported anxiety varies in relation to the subjective evaluation of home environment

Introduction

Although people spend most of the day in their home environment, the focus of research in environmental psychology to date has been on factors outside the home. However, it stands to reason that indoor quality likewise has an impact on psychological well-being. Therefore, the present study addresses the question of whether the subjective evaluation of home environmental parameters are related to self-reported anxiety and whether they can additionally explain variance beyond the usual sociodemographic and general lifestyle variables.

Methods

Data from the Hamburg City Health Study (first 10,000 participants) was analyzed. A subsample of N = 8,886 with available GAD-7 anxiety data was selected, and hierarchical regression models were computed, with demographic data entered first, followed by variables concerning lifestyle/habits and finally variables of the subjective evaluation of home environment.

Results

Using the integrated model, we were able to explain about 13% of the variance in self-reported anxiety scores. This included both the demographic, lifestyle, and subjective evaluation of home environment variables. Protection from disturbing night lights, a greater sense of security, less disturbing noises, brighter accommodations, and a satisfactory window view explained almost 6% of the variance and was significantly associated with lower anxiety scores.

Conclusion

The home as a place of refuge plays an increasingly important role as home office hours rise. It is therefore crucial to identify domestic factors contributing to people's mental well-being. The subjective evaluation of one's home environment has proven influential over and above modifiable lifestyle variables.

Using blood test parameters to define biological age among older adults: association with morbidity and mortality independent of chronological age validated in two separate birth cohorts

Biomarkers defining biological age are typically laborious or expensive to assess. Instead, in the current study, we identified parameters based on standard laboratory blood tests across metabolic, cardiovascular, inflammatory, and kidney functioning that had been assessed in the Berlin Aging Study (BASE) (n = 384) and Berlin Aging Study II (BASE-II) (n = 1517). We calculated biological age using those 12 parameters that individually predicted mortality hazards over 26 years in BASE. In BASE, older biological age was associated with more physician-observed morbidity and higher mortality hazards, over and above the effects of chronological age, sex, and education. Similarly, in BASE-II, biological age was associated with physician-observed morbidity and subjective health, over and above the effects of chronological age, sex, and education as well as alternative biomarkers including telomere length, DNA methylation age, skin age, and subjective age but not PhenoAge. We discuss the importance of biological age as one indicator of aging.