Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35966485›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2022

Connecting to nature through community engaged scholarship: Community gardens as sites for collaborative relationships, psychological, and physiological wellbeing.

Kumara San Ward, Son Truong, Tonia Gray

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

3 authors.

Kumara San WardEducation and Society, School of Humanities, Social Sciences and Law, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom.
Son TruongSchool of Education, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia.
Tonia GraySchool of Education, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Community gardens are recognized as being associated with a range of benefits for participants that include enhanced outcomes in physical and affective domains and community building. The purpose of this study was to research the impact of the New South Wales Royal Botanic Gardens (RBG) Community Greening (CG) program and to inform the ongoing development of this community outreach program. The organic community partnerships inherent in the design and the relationships between the Community Greening program participants and researchers is examined through the lens of Community Engaged Scholarship (CES). Over a seven-month period, the CG team implemented a community garden development program in six sites. Mixed-method research on the impact of the program found that the community gardening participants experienced positive changes in physical activity, psychological wellbeing and motivation for social engagement, and these outcomes were facilitated as a result of their relationships with members of the CG team. This paper examines how such programs, when explicitly framed as CES, could assist in consolidating nature-based community health and wellbeing programs and further legitimize community partnerships in development of community garden and green spaces as academically sound investigation and socio-economically justified activity. Expansion of this nature-based collaboration model may also enhance community engagement in green exercise, psychological wellbeing and community cohesion, and in turn support advocacy for greener environments locally, regionally and nationally.

Indexed as

community engaged scholarshipcommunity gardenscommunity partnershipsnature connectednessphysical and psychological wellbeing

Identifiers

PMID35966485
PMCPMC9366467

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.