Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26346542›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2015

Understanding how environmental enhancement and conservation activities may benefit health and wellbeing: a systematic review.

Rebecca Lovell, Kerryn Husk, Chris Cooper, Will Stahl-Timmins, Ruth Garside

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Regular Doses of Nature: The Efficacy of Green Exercise Interventions for Mental Wellbeing.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. A Qualitative Analysis of UK Wetland Visitor Centres as a Health Resource.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Rebecca LovellEuropean Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter Medical School, RCHT, Truro, TR1 3HD, UK. R.Lovell@exeter.ac.uk.
Kerryn HuskEuropean Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter Medical School, RCHT, Truro, TR1 3HD, UK.
Chris CooperUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Peninsula Technology Assessment Group, Veysey Building, Exeter, EX2 4SG, UK.
Will Stahl-TimminsEuropean Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter Medical School, RCHT, Truro, TR1 3HD, UK.
Ruth GarsideEuropean Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter Medical School, RCHT, Truro, TR1 3HD, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAction taken to enhance or conserve outdoor environments may benefit health and wellbeing through the process of participation but also through improving the environment. There is interest, amongst both health and environmental organisations, in using such activities as health promotion interventions. The objective of this systematic review was to investigate the health and wellbeing impacts of participation in environmental enhancement and conservation activities and to understand how these activities may be beneficial, to whom and in what circumstances or contexts.

methodsA theory-led mixed-method systematic review was used to assess evidence of effect and to identify pathways to change (protocol: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ 10.1002/14651858.CD010351/full ). Due to the multi-disciplinary, dispersed and disparate body of evidence an extensive multi-stage search strategy was devised and undertaken. Twenty-seven databases and multiple sources of grey literature were searched and over 200 relevant organisations were contacted. The heterogenous evidence was synthesised using a narrative approach and a conceptual model was developed to illustrate the mechanisms of effect. Due to the limited nature of the evidence additional higher order evidence was sought to assess the plausibility of the proposed mechanisms of effect through which health and wellbeing may accrue.

resultsThe majority of the quantitative evidence (13 studies; all poor quality and lower-order study designs) was inconclusive, though a small number of positive and negative associations were observed. The qualitative evidence (13 studies; 10 poor quality, 3 good) indicated that the activities were perceived to have value to health and wellbeing through a number of key mechanisms; including exposure to natural environments, achievement, enjoyment and social contact. Additional high level evidence indicated that these pathways were plausible.

conclusionsDespite interest in the use of environmental enhancement activities as a health intervention there is currently little direct evidence of effect, this is primarily due to a lack of robust study designs. Further rigorous research is needed to understand the potential of the activities to benefit health and environment.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesEnvironmentHealth Impact AssessmentHealth PromotionHumans

Identifiers

PMID26346542
PMCPMC4561424

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.