Relationship between the housing coldness/warmth evaluation by CASBEE Housing Health Checklist and psychological distress based on TMM Community-Based Cohort Study: a cross-sectional analysis

Objectives: Previous studies have reported the relationship between housing environment and health, although due to cost and effort, it was difficult to conduct housing condition surveys on a large scale. The CASBEE Housing Health Checklist (the Checklist) made it possible to easily evaluate the housing condition from the resident's perspective. This study examined the relationship between housing coldness/warmth evaluation using the Checklist and psychological distress in a large-scale general Japanese population. Study design: A cross-sectional study. Methods: We analysed data from 29,380 people aged >20 years who lived in Miyagi Prefecture, Japan. As an assessment of housing coldness/warmth, we used the Checklist. We classified participants' total scores on the Checklist related to coldness/warmth into quartiles. The Kessler 6 scale was used as an indicator of psychological distress. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the adjusted odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Adjusted OR and P-values for linear trends were calculated using the quartiles of the Checklists' score. Results: Among participants in Q1 (i.e., poorer subjective house condition), the percentage of people with psychological distress was high. Compared to the highest quartile, Q1 showed poorer evaluation of housing coldness/warmth, and higher OR for psychological distress. The OR (95% CI) of psychological distress for Q3, Q2, and Q1 compared with Q4 were 1.93 (1.74-2.14), 2.82 (2.55-3.12), and 5.78 (5.25-6.35), respectively. Conclusions: Housing coldness/warmth evaluation was significantly related to psychological distress. This finding suggests that maintaining a comfortable thermal environment at home could be important for residents' mental health. (c) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Royal Society for Public Health. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).