Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31527436›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2019

A Systematic Review Protocol Investigating Community Gardening Impact Measures.

Jonathan Kingsley, Aisling Bailey, Nooshin Torabi, Pauline Zardo, Suzanne Mavoa, Tonia Gray, Danielle Tracey, Philip Pettitt, Nicholas Zajac, Emily Foenander

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Community Gardening: Stress, Well-Being, and Resilience Potentials.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  7. 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

10 authors.

Jonathan KingsleySchool of Health Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Victoria 3122, Australia. Jkingsley@swin.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-8528-7164
Aisling BaileySchool of Social Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Victoria 3122, Australia. aabailey@swin.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-3008-4770
Nooshin TorabiSchool of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia. nooshin.torabi@rmit.edu.au.
Pauline ZardoDepartment of Child Safety, Youth and Women, Queensland Government, Brisbane, Queensland 4000, Australia. Pauline.Zardo@csyw.qld.gov.au.
Suzanne MavoaMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia. suzanne.mavoa@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-6071-2988
Tonia GrayCentre for Educational Research, Western Sydney University, Sydney, New South Wales 2751, Australia. T.Gray@westernsydney.edu.au.
Danielle TraceyCentre for Educational Research and Transitional Health Research Institutes, Western Sydney University, Sydney, New South Wales 2751, Australia. D.Tracey@westernsydney.edu.au.
Philip PettittBotanic Gardens & Centennial Parklands, Sydney, New South Wales 2000, Australia. Philip.Pettitt@bgcp.nsw.gov.au.
Nicholas ZajacFaculty of Science, School of Environment, University of Auckland, Auckland, North Island 1010, New Zealand. nick.zajac@icloud.com.
Emily FoenanderSchool of Health Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Victoria 3122, Australia. e.foenand@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Existing community gardening research has tended to be exploratory and descriptive, utilising qualitative or mixed methodologies to explore and understand community garden participation. While research on community gardening attracts growing interest, the empirical rigour of measurement scales and embedded indicators has received comparatively less attention. Despite the extensive body of community gardening literature, a coherent narrative on valid, high quality approaches to the measurement of outcomes and impact across different cultural contexts is lacking and yet to be comprehensively examined. This is essential as cities are becoming hubs for cultural diversity. Systematic literature reviews that explore the multiple benefits of community gardening and other urban agriculture activities have been undertaken, however, a systematic review of the impact measures of community gardening is yet to be completed. This search protocol aims to address the following questions: (1) How are the health, wellbeing, social and environmental outcomes and impacts of community gardening measured? (2) What cultural diversity considerations have existing community garden measures taken into account? Demographic data will be collected along with clear domains/constructs of experiences, impacts and outcomes captured from previous literature to explore if evidence considers culturally heterogeneous and diverse populations. This will offer an understanding as to whether community gardening research is appropriately measuring this cross-cultural activity.

Indexed as

Community ParticipationGardeningGardensCultural CharacteristicsHumansSystematic Reviews as Topiccommunity gardenprotocolsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31527436
PMCPMC6765939

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.