Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-6grmk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T09:42:12.771Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Associations between extreme weather events and resource insecurities with depression and anxiety symptoms among older adults in Moshi, Tanzania: Cross-sectional analyses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2026

Andie MacNeil
Affiliation:
Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto , Canada
Carmen Helen Logie*
Affiliation:
Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto , Canada Women’s College Research Institute, Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, Canada United Nations University Institute for Water Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH) , Richmond Hill, Canada
Karen Yeates
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Queen’s University, Canada
Nicola West
Affiliation:
Pamoja Tunaweza Women’s Centre/Wema Health Innovation Tanzania, United Republic of Tanzania
Frannie MacKenzie
Affiliation:
Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto , Canada
Hamza Rajabu
Affiliation:
Pamoja Tunaweza Women’s Centre/Wema Health Innovation Tanzania, United Republic of Tanzania
Anisia Kiwelu
Affiliation:
Pamoja Tunaweza Women’s Centre/Wema Health Innovation Tanzania, United Republic of Tanzania
Oswald Urassa
Affiliation:
Pamoja Tunaweza Women’s Centre/Wema Health Innovation Tanzania, United Republic of Tanzania
Zerihun Admassu
Affiliation:
Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto , Canada
*
Corresponding author: Carmen Helen Logie; Email: carmen.logie@utoronto.ca
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Extreme weather events (EWEs) and resource insecurities are associated with adverse mental health outcomes, yet little is known about their impacts on older adults in climate-affected settings. We conducted a community-based cross-sectional survey 250 randomly sampled older adults from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology cohort in Moshi, Tanzania (mean age 60.6 years, SD 11.1). Multivariable linear regression examined resource insecurity (food, water, sanitation), EWE exposure, social support, and resilience associations with depressive and anxiety symptoms. In adjusted analyses, low food security (aβ=0.86, 95% CI: 0.54, 1.18), very low food security (aβ=1.07, 95% CI: 0.73, 1.41), sanitation insecurity (aβ=0.05, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.09p = 0.022 e), and past-year EWE exposure (aβ=0.39, 95% CI: 0.07, 0.70) were associated with higher depressive symptoms. Low food security (aβ=0.51, 95% CI: 0.22, 0.79), very low food security (aβ=0.62, 95% CI: 0.32, 0.93), and water insecurity (aβ=0.53, 95% CI: 0.02, 1.03) were associated with higher anxiety ssymptoms, while resilience was associated with lower anxiety symptoms (aβ= −0.07, 95% CI: −0.14,−0.01). Findings highlight interconnected environmental and resource insecurity-related mental health vulnerabilities among older adults, underscoring the importance of integrating resource security and mental health into climate adaptation strategies for older adults in climate-affected low and middle-income settings.

Topics structure

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press or the rights holder(s) must be obtained prior to any commercial use.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of socio-demographic characteristics, resource insecurity outcomes, extreme weather events and mental health among adults in Moshi, Tanzania, disaggregated by gender (n = 250; mean age = 60.6; SD = 11.1)Table 1. long description.

Figure 1

Table 2. Factors associated with depressive symptoms among adults in Moshi, Tanzania (n = 250)Table 2. long description.

Figure 2

Table 3. Factors associated with anxiety symptoms among adults in Moshi, Tanzania (n = 250)Table 3. long description.

Author comment: Associations between extreme weather events and resource insecurities with depression and anxiety symptoms among older adults in Moshi, Tanzania: Cross-sectional analyses — R0/PR1

Comments

January 20, 2026

RE: Submission of an original manuscript: Associations between extreme weather events and resource insecurities with depression and anxiety symptoms among older adults in Moshi, Tanzania: cross-sectional analyses

Dear Dr. Bass, Dr. Chibanda, and the Global Mental Health Editorial Board:

On behalf of my co-authors, I am pleased to submit our original manuscript for review at Global Mental Health.

There is growing recognition of the detrimental impacts of extreme weather events (EWEs) and related resource insecurities, such as food, water, and sanitation, on the mental health of people living in climate-affected contexts, such as Tanzania. However, existing mental health research on EWEs and resource insecurity-related factors has focused predominantly on youth and younger adults, while older adults have been largely overlooked. The lack of research focusing on older adults comprises a pressing gap in research within and beyond the Tanzanian context to reflect significant knowledge gaps in climate change in sub-Saharan Africa more broadly.

Older people face unique physical, economic, and social vulnerabilities in the context of extreme weather and related resource insecurities, including greater dependence on others, social exclusion, less access to resources, vulnerability to EWE-related illness, and limitations in physical functioning. Coupled with the expanding aging population, this highlights an urgent need for research focused on older adult mental wellbeing in contexts of ecological and resource insecurity related challenges. Tanzania provides an important context to examine this nexus of EWEs, resource insecurities, and mental health outcomes among older people. Tanzania is highly vulnerable to extreme weather, and approximately 70-80% of Tanzanians live in informal settlements that are highly susceptible to drought, extreme heat, and flooding, and often have limited capacity to respond to increasing resource scarcity and EWE-related infrastructure damage

We conducted a community-based cross-sectional survey of a random sample of older adults (n=250; mean age=60.6 years; SD=11.1) from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology cohort in Moshi, Tanzania to examine associations between resource insecurities (food, water, sanitation), EWE exposure, socio-demographics, and protective factors (social support, resilience) with depressive and anxiety symptoms. In adjusted analyses, low food security, very low food security, sanitation insecurity, and experiencing a past-year EWE were associated with higher depression scores. Low food security, very low food security, and water insecurity, were associated with higher anxiety scores, while resilience was negatively associated with anxiety. These findings provide new insights into the mental health experiences of older adults at the nexus of extreme weather and resource insecurities, and can inform future research and interventions with older adults in LMIC climate-affected regions such as Tanzania to understand and address socio-environmental stressors that can harm mental health.

We believe our manuscript is well-suited for publication in Global Mental Health as it addresses an urgent yet underexplored issue at the intersection of climate change and older adult mental health in sub-Saharan Africa. This work is relevant to a wide audience, including health policymakers, funders, researchers, clinicians, and frontline healthcare workers working to improve mental health outcomes in climate-vulnerable settings. The manuscript is within the journal’s word limit, totaling 4,529 words. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Carmen Logie, PhD

Canada Research Chair in Global Health Equity and Social Justice with Marginalized Populations

Professor, Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Review: Associations between extreme weather events and resource insecurities with depression and anxiety symptoms among older adults in Moshi, Tanzania: Cross-sectional analyses — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The study Associations between extreme weather events and resource insecurities with depression and anxiety symptoms among older adults in Moshi, Tanzania: cross-sectional analyses refers to the evaluation of indicators compatible with depression, anxiety and substance use disorders in the elderly in a given area of Tanzania. Due to its geopolitical characteristics, it is a relevant, current and important study in the context of health and, as the authors demonstrate, it is strongly linked to aspects of the environment and its modifications by the human context.

The authors present and base the findings of the justification for their investigation in a literature that is current, pertinent and compatible with the theme investigated.

The methodological proposal resulting from the defined objectives is well described, characterizing sampling and sampling processes in a population context with the use of instruments in scale format and supported by evidence from the current literature on their applicability. The statistical analytical process is compatible with the objectives of the proposal, as well as was carried out in accordance with the precepts defined by the current technical-scientific literature.

The authors present a set of instruments used in the information collection process and that were administered in the native language by research assistants. The reviewer considers it important to have a more detailed description of the processes of adaptation/translation of the scales to the Swahili language, in addition to also better characterizing the process of training the administration of the scales, in view of the possibility of interference of variables such as prosody, emphasis on certain expressions, explanations when necessary, in addition to possible biases such as social desirability of the respondent elderly.

It should also be noted that the scales, although they identify constructs similar to psychopathological manifestations, do not necessarily formulate a diagnosis of these conditions. Thus, in view of the results on page nine and sequence, the reviewer suggests that the results should be presented not as a reported generalized anxiety disorder, but symptoms compatible with generalized anxiety disorder.

The authors pointed out the use of the brief questionnaire on Resilience and social support, however there are no results described on these scales, and there are no results described on these scales, and there is no descriptive presentation of the results of these scales and/or the construct.

The conclusion presents the main manifestations of observed data and the authors' self-criticism regarding the limitations of the present study, stimulating new investigations with population processes, specifically the elderly in the region.

The reviewer understands that there is a need for a better description of the methodological processes, especially the translated use, and how this cultural adaptation of the scales and the processes of administering them through research assistants was.

The results are presented actively described in text and implemented from tables attached to the end of the work, being pertinent and appropriate in the presentations.

The discussion is supported by current data and references, characterizing the reader’s compatible and fluid integration of the text, which allows the following of the authors' main ideas.

Review: Associations between extreme weather events and resource insecurities with depression and anxiety symptoms among older adults in Moshi, Tanzania: Cross-sectional analyses — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The manuscript addresses a relevant and uninvestigated issue: the mental health of elderly people in the context of a low-income country experiencing the effects of climate change and resource insecurity. It has a sound methodology and design, and the results are timely and significant. The article is clear and convincing in its contribution. Nevertheless, several problems, especially in the framing, discussion, and presentation of the results, should be addressed to make the paper more convincing, effective, and publication-worthy (Details below).

Introduction

(a) The fact that climate change is leading to drastic droughts, extreme heat, heavy rain, and flooding (Page 6, lines 16-17) might be reinforced with a particular statistic or example from Tanzania. For example, mentioning the current 2023–2024 floods that have displaced thousands of people in the Kilimanjaro region would better reflect the local reality.

(b) The fact that, as stated by Kimutai et al., none of the 25 studies were conducted in Tanzania (Page 6, lines 27-28) is a strong argument. It must be emphasized more as one of the main reasons for conducting the study.

(c) The fact that the score of youth with climate distress on depression issues was at least 18 percentage points higher (Page 7, line 15) is rather unclear. Indicate whether it is a relative difference or an absolute percentage point difference. If standardized coefficients or specific scale scores are reported in the paper, it would be worthwhile to state that the youth scored [X] points higher on the [name of scale], which represents an increase of 18 percentage points above the mean.

(d) The intersectional lens is introduced (Page 8, lines 15-22) but could be more tightly woven into the study’s rationale. Consider revising to explicitly state how intersectionality applies to this study.

(e) The last sentence of the introduction (Page 8, lines 22-25) gives all the variables of the study, but it becomes a little bulky. It is possible to divide it into two sentences to make it more understandable.

Methods

(a) The quote, "We leveraged the current Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study cohort to randomly sample n = 250 participants" (Page 9, lines 2-3), should be expanded; that is, what is the size of the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) cohort at Moshi as a whole? How were the sampling frame and randomization done? What were the inclusion/exclusion criteria, other than belonging to the PURE cohort? Were age restrictions provided because of the attention paid to older adults?

(b) No indication is given of the number of people approached compared to those who participated. Such information plays a vital role in determining the potential for selection bias. It should include the following: Of the [X] individuals approached, [Y] accepted participation, and the response rate was [Z]%.

(c) Tablet-based surveys were used and administered by research assistants (Page 9, lines 6-7). Please explain: Did the research assistants receive training? In that case, briefly explain the training. Did quality control measures (e.g., spot checks, back-check interviews) take place? Were the participants allowed to self-administer the surveys, or were all the interviews conducted face-to-face?

(d) The information regarding the exclusion of the analysis of alcohol use disorder due to low reliability (Page 9, lines 13-15) is justified; however, it is too early. It should be considered that such data should be moved to the Measurement section (2.2.1), where CAGE is initially presented, or to the start of the Results section.

(e) According to the authors, descriptive statistics indicated that a score of [?]3 was used to distinguish Major Depressive Disorder... This statement is correct, but please explain that the cut-off was applied only to the prevalence estimates in Table 1, while continuous scores were used in the regression. This is now being inferred, but not directly expressed. Is the present finding the result of a cultural or contextual problem of the CAGE in this population? Was any item analysis conducted to determine the reasons for the low reliability? Transparency would be enhanced by a brief acknowledgment in the Methods that this restriction limits the interpretation of the alcohol use findings (discussed less ambiguously in the Limitations).

(f) The EWE variable is also categorized as none, one, and above one EWE (Page 10, line 19). Did you consider the nature of EWE (i.e., distinguishing between sudden-onset and slow-onset events)? Otherwise, this defect must be recognized as a methodological limitation. (g) No reference to data that were missed during analysis. Did it have any missing values? In that case, how were they processed (e.g., full case analysis, imputation)? Otherwise, state that the analysis used all available data for the variables.

Results

(a) The average age was 60.6 (SD = 11.1; Page 11, line 18). Since the target of the study was older adults, it would be useful to provide the age range (e.g., min-max) to demonstrate the complete distribution.

(b) It is stated in the text that almost 90% of men (n=61) were in any form of marriage or dating in comparison to half of the women (n=100) (Page 11, lines 25-26). Table 1 indicates that among men, 61 (89.7) were married/dating, and among women, 100 (55.2) were married/dating; the pattern is consistent. Nevertheless, Table 1 also contains multiple partners/polyamorous (n=1), which is not mentioned in the text. If this category is useless, delete it from the table or note it in the text.

(c) The authors reported that resilience was found to have a negative relationship with anxiety (ab = − 0.07, p < 0.001; Page 13, lines 22-23). The small coefficient suggests the need for an interpretive context: a 1-point increase in the resilience scale was associated with a 0.07-point drop in anxiety scores, indicating a small but statistically significant protective effect in Table 1.

(d) Extreme weather events appear twice (Page 25, bottom, Table 1 and Page 26, middle). Eliminate redundancy.

(e) Tables 2 and 3 need to be sorted in a similar way (sociodemographic, resource insecurity, EWE, protective factors) so that they can be easily compared. Table 3 now has resilience ahead of social support, whereas Table 2 has social support ahead of resilience. Standardize.

Discussion

(a) Develop the Discussion about Social Support: This critically important null finding needs elaboration. The present dialogue (Page 16, lines 18-25) is brief and seems out of place.

(b) Although the introduction stated that an intersectional lens would be used, the discussion could be more explicit about its application.

(c) It was noted in the discussion that in South Africa, severe food insecurity was associated with a fivefold higher probability of depression (Page 14, line 17). It would be beneficial to include a comparison of the magnitude of the findings from the current study. On the one hand, a comparison between the two studies is not possible because of different methods of measuring the constructs; on the other hand, the adjusted coefficient of 1.07 for very low food security in the current study represents a significant contribution to the PHQ-2 scale, as observed in other African studies.

Review: Associations between extreme weather events and resource insecurities with depression and anxiety symptoms among older adults in Moshi, Tanzania: Cross-sectional analyses — R0/PR4

Conflict of interest statement

I have no conflict of interest with the authors

Comments

This paper is interesting because it addresses something that has rarely been researched. Furthermore, the large sample size is also a strength. However, I noticed some inconsistency in the researcher’s approach to demographic data (relationship status). The methods section states that the researcher did include demographic data in the model analysis, but when the results were significant, this was not stated in the abstract or discussed in the conclusion. I also have concerns about statistics, specifically regarding extreme weather events (one). Is it possible to display the bivariate test table so that the predictive variables can be clearly identified?

Recommendation: Associations between extreme weather events and resource insecurities with depression and anxiety symptoms among older adults in Moshi, Tanzania: Cross-sectional analyses — R0/PR5

Comments

The reviewers and I were very pleased with your manuscript and find the topic highly interesting and relevant. However, we have several important comments that need to be addressed and clarified before the manuscript can be considered further. Please find the detailed feedback below.

Reviewer 1: Major revisions

The study Associations between extreme weather events and resource insecurities with depression and anxiety symptoms among older adults in Moshi, Tanzania: cross-sectional analyses refers to the evaluation of indicators compatible with depression, anxiety and substance use disorders in the elderly in a given area of Tanzania. Due to its geopolitical characteristics, it is a relevant, current and important study in the context of health and, as the authors demonstrate, it is strongly linked to aspects of the environment and its modifications by the human context.

The authors present and base the findings of the justification for their investigation in a literature that is current, pertinent and compatible with the theme investigated.

The methodological proposal resulting from the defined objectives is well described, characterizing sampling and sampling processes in a population context with the use of instruments in scale format and supported by evidence from the current literature on their applicability. The statistical analytical process is compatible with the objectives of the proposal, as well as was carried out in accordance with the precepts defined by the current technical-scientific literature.

The authors present a set of instruments used in the information collection process and that were administered in the native language by research assistants. The reviewer considers it important to have a more detailed description of the processes of adaptation/translation of the scales to the Swahili language, in addition to also better characterizing the process of training the administration of the scales, in view of the possibility of interference of variables such as prosody, emphasis on certain expressions, explanations when necessary, in addition to possible biases such as social desirability of the respondent elderly.

It should also be noted that the scales, although they identify constructs similar to psychopathological manifestations, do not necessarily formulate a diagnosis of these conditions. Thus, in view of the results on page nine and sequence, the reviewer suggests that the results should be presented not as a reported generalized anxiety disorder, but symptoms compatible with generalized anxiety disorder.

The authors pointed out the use of the brief questionnaire on Resilience and social support, however there are no results described on these scales, and there are no results described on these scales, and there is no descriptive presentation of the results of these scales and/or the construct.

The conclusion presents the main manifestations of observed data and the authors' self-criticism regarding the limitations of the present study, stimulating new investigations with population processes, specifically the elderly in the region.

The reviewer understands that there is a need for a better description of the methodological processes, especially the translated use, and how this cultural adaptation of the scales and the processes of administering them through research assistants was.

The results are presented actively described in text and implemented from tables attached to the end of the work, being pertinent and appropriate in the presentations.

The discussion is supported by current data and references, characterizing the reader’s compatible and fluid integration of the text, which allows the following of the authors' main ideas.

Reviewer 2: Major revisions

The manuscript addresses a relevant and uninvestigated issue: the mental health of elderly people in the context of a low-income country experiencing the effects of climate change and resource insecurity. It has a sound methodology and design, and the results are timely and significant. The article is clear and convincing in its contribution. Nevertheless, several problems, especially in the framing, discussion, and presentation of the results, should be addressed to make the paper more convincing, effective, and publication-worthy (Details below).

Introduction

(a) The fact that climate change is leading to drastic droughts, extreme heat, heavy rain, and flooding (Page 6, lines 16-17) might be reinforced with a particular statistic or example from Tanzania. For example, mentioning the current 2023–2024 floods that have displaced thousands of people in the Kilimanjaro region would better reflect the local reality.

(b) The fact that, as stated by Kimutai et al., none of the 25 studies were conducted in Tanzania (Page 6, lines 27-28) is a strong argument. It must be emphasized more as one of the main reasons for conducting the study.

(c) The fact that the score of youth with climate distress on depression issues was at least 18 percentage points higher (Page 7, line 15) is rather unclear. Indicate whether it is a relative difference or an absolute percentage point difference. If standardized coefficients or specific scale scores are reported in the paper, it would be worthwhile to state that the youth scored [X] points higher on the [name of scale], which represents an increase of 18 percentage points above the mean.

(d) The intersectional lens is introduced (Page 8, lines 15-22) but could be more tightly woven into the study’s rationale. Consider revising to explicitly state how intersectionality applies to this study.

(e) The last sentence of the introduction (Page 8, lines 22-25) gives all the variables of the study, but it becomes a little bulky. It is possible to divide it into two sentences to make it more understandable.

Methods

(a) The quote, "We leveraged the current Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study cohort to randomly sample n = 250 participants" (Page 9, lines 2-3), should be expanded; that is, what is the size of the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) cohort at Moshi as a whole? How were the sampling frame and randomization done? What were the inclusion/exclusion criteria, other than belonging to the PURE cohort? Were age restrictions provided because of the attention paid to older adults?

(b) No indication is given of the number of people approached compared to those who participated. Such information plays a vital role in determining the potential for selection bias. It should include the following: Of the [X] individuals approached, [Y] accepted participation, and the response rate was [Z]%.

(c) Tablet-based surveys were used and administered by research assistants (Page 9, lines 6-7). Please explain: Did the research assistants receive training? In that case, briefly explain the training. Did quality control measures (e.g., spot checks, back-check interviews) take place? Were the participants allowed to self-administer the surveys, or were all the interviews conducted face-to-face?

(d) The information regarding the exclusion of the analysis of alcohol use disorder due to low reliability (Page 9, lines 13-15) is justified; however, it is too early. It should be considered that such data should be moved to the Measurement section (2.2.1), where CAGE is initially presented, or to the start of the Results section.

(e) According to the authors, descriptive statistics indicated that a score of [?]3 was used to distinguish Major Depressive Disorder... This statement is correct, but please explain that the cut-off was applied only to the prevalence estimates in Table 1, while continuous scores were used in the regression. This is now being inferred, but not directly expressed. Is the present finding the result of a cultural or contextual problem of the CAGE in this population? Was any item analysis conducted to determine the reasons for the low reliability? Transparency would be enhanced by a brief acknowledgment in the Methods that this restriction limits the interpretation of the alcohol use findings (discussed less ambiguously in the Limitations).

(f) The EWE variable is also categorized as none, one, and above one EWE (Page 10, line 19). Did you consider the nature of EWE (i.e., distinguishing between sudden-onset and slow-onset events)? Otherwise, this defect must be recognized as a methodological limitation. (g) No reference to data that were missed during analysis. Did it have any missing values? In that case, how were they processed (e.g., full case analysis, imputation)? Otherwise, state that the analysis used all available data for the variables.

Results

(a) The average age was 60.6 (SD = 11.1; Page 11, line 18). Since the target of the study was older adults, it would be useful to provide the age range (e.g., min-max) to demonstrate the complete distribution.

(b) It is stated in the text that almost 90% of men (n=61) were in any form of marriage or dating in comparison to half of the women (n=100) (Page 11, lines 25-26). Table 1 indicates that among men, 61 (89.7) were married/dating, and among women, 100 (55.2) were married/dating; the pattern is consistent. Nevertheless, Table 1 also contains multiple partners/polyamorous (n=1), which is not mentioned in the text. If this category is useless, delete it from the table or note it in the text.

(c) The authors reported that resilience was found to have a negative relationship with anxiety (ab = − 0.07, p < 0.001; Page 13, lines 22-23). The small coefficient suggests the need for an interpretive context: a 1-point increase in the resilience scale was associated with a 0.07-point drop in anxiety scores, indicating a small but statistically significant protective effect in Table 1.

(d) Extreme weather events appear twice (Page 25, bottom, Table 1 and Page 26, middle). Eliminate redundancy.

(e) Tables 2 and 3 need to be sorted in a similar way (sociodemographic, resource insecurity, EWE, protective factors) so that they can be easily compared. Table 3 now has resilience ahead of social support, whereas Table 2 has social support ahead of resilience. Standardize.

Discussion

(a) Develop the Discussion about Social Support: This critically important null finding needs elaboration. The present dialogue (Page 16, lines 18-25) is brief and seems out of place.

(b) Although the introduction stated that an intersectional lens would be used, the discussion could be more explicit about its application.

(c) It was noted in the discussion that in South Africa, severe food insecurity was associated with a fivefold higher probability of depression (Page 14, line 17). It would be beneficial to include a comparison of the magnitude of the findings from the current study. On the one hand, a comparison between the two studies is not possible because of different methods of measuring the constructs; on the other hand, the adjusted coefficient of 1.07 for very low food security in the current study represents a significant contribution to the PHQ-2 scale, as observed in other African studies.

Reviewer 2: Minor revisions

This paper is interesting because it addresses something that has rarely been researched. Furthermore, the large sample size is also a strength. However, I noticed some inconsistency in the researcher’s approach to demographic data (relationship status). The methods section states that the researcher didn´t include demographic data in the model analysis, but when the results were significant, this was neither stated in the abstract nor discussed in the conclusion. I also have concerns about statistics, specifically regarding extreme weather events (one). Is it possible to display the bivariate test table so that the predictive variables can be clearly identified?

Decision: Associations between extreme weather events and resource insecurities with depression and anxiety symptoms among older adults in Moshi, Tanzania: Cross-sectional analyses — R0/PR6

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Associations between extreme weather events and resource insecurities with depression and anxiety symptoms among older adults in Moshi, Tanzania: Cross-sectional analyses — R1/PR7

Comments

Dear Dr. Bass, Dr. Chibanda, and the Global Mental Health Editorial Board,

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our original manuscript, “Associations between extreme weather events and resource insecurities with depression and anxiety symptoms among older adults in Moshi, Tanzania: cross-sectional analyses.” We appreciate the helpful and insightful comments that we recevied from the reviewers. We have responded to each of these comments in detail, and we believe that the manuscript has been substantially strengthened as a result of this feedback. Thank you for considering our publication for Global Mental Health.

Sincerely,

Carmen Logie, PhD

Canada Research Chair in Global Health Equity and Social Justice with Marginalized Populations

Professor, Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Review: Associations between extreme weather events and resource insecurities with depression and anxiety symptoms among older adults in Moshi, Tanzania: Cross-sectional analyses — R1/PR8

Conflict of interest statement

No

Comments

441

The authors presented the corrections in detail, addressing the requested observations, and also provided descriptive comments related to these observations. The reviewer verifies the changes and clarifications throughout the text, both in the manuscript and in the various stages resulting from the reviewers' observations. Thus, the reviewer feels satisfied with the considerations provided and with the verification of the improved quality of the material.

Review: Associations between extreme weather events and resource insecurities with depression and anxiety symptoms among older adults in Moshi, Tanzania: Cross-sectional analyses — R1/PR9

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

This paper addresses a significant gap—mental health among older adults in climate-affected Tanzania—but several methodological and conceptual weaknesses limit the strength of its conclusions (details below).

Major Concerns

1. The authors repeatedly use associational language that edges toward causal inference (e.g., “impacts of resource scarcity on anxiety”). The limitations section briefly acknowledges these concerns. Given the design, the Discussion should be substantially more restrained throughout.

2. The sample was 72.8% women and 95.6% unemployed, which raises serious generalizability concerns—particularly for findings disaggregated by gender. The authors acknowledge limited generalizability to men but do not adequately address whether the PURE cohort itself is representative of Moshi’s older adult population.

3. Collapsing diverse events (floods, earthquakes, wildfires, and droughts) into a simple count variable (“one” vs. “multiple”) discards information about severity, duration, and type. Critically, experiencing “one” EWE showed a significant depression association, while “multiple” did not—a counterintuitive dose-response finding that is insufficiently explained and potentially an artifact of the measure’s insensitivity.

4. The abstract, impact statement, and introduction prominently frame alcohol use disorder as a study outcome. It is then dropped due to poor CAGE reliability (α=0.61). This change represents a post-hoc scope reduction that should either be moved entirely to a protocol limitation note or—better—require the authors to revise all framing sections to reflect the study’s actual scope from the outset.

5. Resilience reduced anxiety but had no effect on depression, and social support had no significant impact on either of the outcomes. These null findings for social support are theoretically surprising and deserve substantive engagement, not a brief suggestion for future research.

Minor Concerns

Table 1 duplicates the “Extreme weather events” section twice, indicating insufficient proofreading.

The p-value reported for resilience in the abstract (aβ=−0.07, p<0.001) is inconsistent with that in Table 3 (p<0.001 in the adjusted column, but the unadjusted p=0.004)—the threshold warrants clarification.

The intersectionality framework is invoked repeatedly but functions primarily as rhetoric; no intersectional analyses (e.g., interaction terms by gender × food insecurity) are actually conducted.

Recommendation: Associations between extreme weather events and resource insecurities with depression and anxiety symptoms among older adults in Moshi, Tanzania: Cross-sectional analyses — R1/PR10

Comments

The team of reviewers and I have been very satisfied with the article; we have observations that we ask you to clarify. We are sending you the comments below:

Reviewer 1: Major revisions

This paper addresses a significant gap—mental health among older adults in climate-affected Tanzania—but several methodological and conceptual weaknesses limit the strength of its conclusions (details below).

Major Concerns

1. The authors repeatedly use associational language that edges toward causal inference (e.g., “impacts of resource scarcity on anxiety”). The limitations section briefly acknowledges these concerns. Given the design, the Discussion should be substantially more restrained throughout.

2. The sample was 72.8% women and 95.6% unemployed, which raises serious generalizability concerns—particularly for findings disaggregated by gender. The authors acknowledge limited generalizability to men but do not adequately address whether the PURE cohort itself is representative of Moshi’s older adult population.

3. Collapsing diverse events (floods, earthquakes, wildfires, and droughts) into a simple count variable (“one” vs. “multiple”) discards information about severity, duration, and type. Critically, experiencing “one” EWE showed a significant depression association, while “multiple” did not—a counterintuitive dose-response finding that is insufficiently explained and potentially an artifact of the measure’s insensitivity.

4. The abstract, impact statement, and introduction prominently frame alcohol use disorder as a study outcome. It is then dropped due to poor CAGE reliability (α=0.61). This change represents a post-hoc scope reduction that should either be moved entirely to a protocol limitation note or—better—require the authors to revise all framing sections to reflect the study’s actual scope from the outset.

5. Resilience reduced anxiety but had no effect on depression, and social support had no significant impact on either of the outcomes. These null findings for social support are theoretically surprising and deserve substantive engagement, not a brief suggestion for future research.

Minor Concerns

Table 1 duplicates the “Extreme weather events” section twice, indicating insufficient proofreading.

The p-value reported for resilience in the abstract (aβ=−0.07, p<0.001) is inconsistent with that in Table 3 (p<0.001 in the adjusted column, but the unadjusted p=0.004)—the threshold warrants clarification.

The intersectionality framework is invoked repeatedly but functions primarily as rhetoric; no intersectional analyses (e.g., interaction terms by gender × food insecurity) are actually conducted.

Reviewer 2:

The authors presented the corrections in detail, addressed the requested observations, and provided descriptive comments on them. The reviewer verifies the changes and clarifications throughout the text, both in the manuscript and in the various stages resulting from the reviewers' observations. Thus, the reviewer is satisfied with the considerations provided and the verification of the material’s improved quality.

Decision: Associations between extreme weather events and resource insecurities with depression and anxiety symptoms among older adults in Moshi, Tanzania: Cross-sectional analyses — R1/PR11

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Associations between extreme weather events and resource insecurities with depression and anxiety symptoms among older adults in Moshi, Tanzania: Cross-sectional analyses — R2/PR12

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: Associations between extreme weather events and resource insecurities with depression and anxiety symptoms among older adults in Moshi, Tanzania: Cross-sectional analyses — R2/PR13

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The manuscript has improved substantially, and most of my previous concerns have been addressed. I have only a few remaining points.

1. The revised manuscript acknowledges the limitations of using a count measure to combine different EWEs appropriately. However, the adjusted analysis revealed that a single EWE was linked to an increase in depression symptoms, but more than one EWE was not. The Discussion does, however, report more broadly that “experiencing a past-year EWE” was linked to more depression. I suggest the wording be rewritten so that it is more accurate and a dose-response is not indicated by the study, with more EWEs being associated with increased depression.

2. The revised Methods section now states that participants were randomly selected from the Tanzanian PURE cohort, which resolves some of my previous concerns. However, random selection from the PURE cohort does not imply that the PURE cohort is representative of the general older population in Moshi. Describe the recruitment process of the original Moshi PURE cohort briefly and note that there is no population representativeness.

3. Appropriate changes have been made to the Abstract and Impact Statement to highlight depression and anxiety. But at the end of the Introduction, it reads, “The study focused on depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and alcohol use disorder.” It is then explained in the Methods section that alcohol use was not included in the multivariable analyses due to the CAGE scale’s poor reliability (α=0.61). Please specify “depression” and “anxiety” as the key study outcomes to align the Introduction with the actual analytical scope.

4. The manuscript still emphasizes an intersectional approach to aging, while statistical analysis does not directly examine the intersections of social positions or exposures. The authors recognize that a larger sample would be required for interaction analyses (gender × food insecurity). I do not recommend including underpowered post hoc analyses. Rather, please explain that intersectionality is used as a lens for understanding the results of the study and not that the study conducted an intersectional analysis.

The authors have acted appropriately in response to the last review. In particular, the causal language, discussion of resilience and social support, and the previously duplicated content in Table 1 have been satisfactorily improved. The other problems listed above are mostly clarifications and better formulations and do not require significant further analysis.

Recommendation: Associations between extreme weather events and resource insecurities with depression and anxiety symptoms among older adults in Moshi, Tanzania: Cross-sectional analyses — R2/PR14

Comments

Dear authors, the manuscript has improved substantially, and you have addressed most of the previous concerns. We have a few remaining points.

1. The revised manuscript acknowledges the limitations of using a count measure to combine different EWEs appropriately. However, the adjusted analysis revealed that a single EWE was linked to an increase in depression symptoms, but more than one EWE was not. The Discussion does, however, report more broadly that “experiencing a past-year EWE” was linked to more depression. I suggest the wording be rewritten so that it is more accurate and a dose-response is not indicated by the study, with more EWEs being associated with increased depression.

2. The revised Methods section now states that participants were randomly selected from the Tanzanian PURE cohort, which resolves some of my previous concerns. However, random selection from the PURE cohort does not imply that the PURE cohort represents the general older population in Moshi. Describe the recruitment process of the original Moshi PURE cohort briefly and note that there is no population representativeness.

3. Appropriate changes have been made to the Abstract and Impact Statement to highlight depression and anxiety. But at the end of the Introduction, it reads, “The study focused on depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and alcohol use disorder.” It is then explained in the Methods section that alcohol use was not included in the multivariable analyses due to the CAGE scale’s poor reliability (α=0.61). Please specify “depression” and “anxiety” as the key study outcomes to align the Introduction with the actual analytical scope.

4. The manuscript still emphasizes an intersectional approach to aging, while the statistical analysis does not directly examine the intersections of social positions or exposures. The authors recognize that a larger sample would be required for interaction analyses (gender × food insecurity). I do not recommend including underpowered post hoc analyses. Rather, please explain that intersectionality is used as a lens for understanding the results of the study and not that the study conducted an intersectional analysis.

The authors have responded appropriately to the last review. In particular, the causal language, discussion of resilience and social support, and the previously duplicated content in Table 1 have been satisfactorily improved. The other problems listed above are mostly clarifications and better formulations and do not require significant further analysis.

Decision: Associations between extreme weather events and resource insecurities with depression and anxiety symptoms among older adults in Moshi, Tanzania: Cross-sectional analyses — R2/PR15

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Associations between extreme weather events and resource insecurities with depression and anxiety symptoms among older adults in Moshi, Tanzania: Cross-sectional analyses — R3/PR16

Comments

Dear Dr. Bass, Dr. Chibanda, and the Global Mental Health Editorial Board:

On behalf of my co-authors, thank you for the opportunity to submit our revised manuscript for review at Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health. We are appreciative of the thoughtful and insightful comments provided by the reviewers. We have responded to each of their comments and we believe the manuscript has been strengthened as a result of this helpful feedback.

Thank you again for considering this revised submission for possible publication in Health and Place. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Carmen Logie, PhD

Canada Research Chair in Global Health Equity and Social Justice with Marginalized Populations

Professor, Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Recommendation: Associations between extreme weather events and resource insecurities with depression and anxiety symptoms among older adults in Moshi, Tanzania: Cross-sectional analyses — R3/PR17

Comments

Dear authors, Thank you all very much for your patience and for all the effort you have put into the development of this manuscript. I truly appreciate your time, commitment, and valuable contributions throughout this process.

Decision: Associations between extreme weather events and resource insecurities with depression and anxiety symptoms among older adults in Moshi, Tanzania: Cross-sectional analyses — R3/PR18

Comments

No accompanying comment.