Background: Globally, national guidelines for depression have prioritised evidence from randomised controlled trials and quantitative meta-analyses, omitting qualitative research concerning patient experience of treatments. A review of patient experience research can provide a comprehensive overview of this important form of evidence and thus enable the voices and subjectivities of those affected by depression to have an impact on the treatments and services they are offered. This review aims to seek a comprehensive understanding of patient experiences of psychological therapies for depression using a systematic and rigorous approach to review and synthesis of qualitative research. Method: PsychINFO, PsychARTICLES, MEDLINE, and CINAHL were searched for published articles using a qualitative approach to examine experiences of psychological therapies for depression. All types of psychological therapy were included irrespective of model or modes of delivery (e.g. remote or in person; group or individual). Each article was assessed following guidance provided by the Critical Appraisal Skill Programme tool. Articles were entered in full into NVIVO and themes were extracted and synthesized following inductive thematic analysis. Results: Thirty-seven studies, representing 671 patients were included. Three main themes are described; the role of therapy features and setting; therapy processes and how they impact on outcomes; and therapy outcomes (benefits and limitations). Subthemes are described within these themes and include discussion of what works and what's unhelpful; issues integrating therapy with real life; patient preferences and individual difference; challenges of undertaking therapy; influence of the therapist; benefits of therapy; limits of therapy and what happens when therapy ends. Conclusions: Findings point to the importance of common factors in psychotherapies; highlight the need to assess negative outcomes; and indicate the need for patients to be more involved in discussions and decisions about therapy, including tailoring therapy to individual needs and taking social and cultural contexts into account.

The impact of environmental context on the psychological benefits derived from physical activity has attracted research attention in recent years. Previous reviews have compared effects of indoor versus outdoor exercise. This review compares the effects of physical activity undertaken in outdoor green natural environments versus outdoor urban environments on psychological health outcomes in adult general populations. An electronic literature search identified 24 experimental studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Results were analysed via narrative synthesis (n = 24) and meta‐analysis (n = 9) of effect on six outcomes. Narrative synthesis found in favour of the natural environment for anxiety, anger/hostility, energy, affect and positive engagement. Post‐intervention effect sizes suggested duration and social context as potential moderators. The meta‐analyses revealed large or moderate effects in favour of the natural environment for anxiety, fatigue, positive affect and vigour, and a small effect for depression. Results were subject to high risk of bias and heterogeneity. Physical activity undertaken outdoors in natural environments is more beneficial for a range of psychological outcomes compared with urban environments. The various effect sizes evident in the meta‐analyses may be explained by differing mechanisms through which psychological gains are experienced during physical activity in nature.

The UK government has invested £5.77 million in green social prescribing to prevent and tackle mental ill-health. Therapeutic community gardening, one type of green social prescription, provides a range of health outcomes. However, for increased accessibility, a greater understanding of how it impacts mental health and the facilitators and barriers to referral, uptake, and attendance by individuals with mental health problems is required. We conducted and thematically analysed interviews with thirteen stakeholders including social prescribing link workers and garden staff; and focus groups with twenty garden members. The mechanisms by which therapeutic community gardening were suggested to impact mental health were by engaging members with nature and the outdoors, providing hope for the future and facilitating social support and relationships. Factors facilitating referral, uptake, and attendance included a holistic and person-centred approach, which is flexible around health needs. Barriers included awareness of the full offering of therapeutic community gardens and accessibility, in terms of physical location and waiting lists. Given that nature-based interventions have the potential to protect and enhance population health and offer cost savings through reduced reliance on other health services; overcoming these barriers is key to ensuring that therapeutic community gardening is more widely available as an additional mental health treatment.

Background: literature on the mental health benefits of therapeutic community gardening is not specific to individuals with mental illness and reports short-term outcomes. The impact of the coronavirus pandemic on intervention effectiveness is also unknown. This study examined the impact of therapeutic community gardening prior to and across the pandemic on the wellbeing of individuals referred for support with their mental illness. Methods: garden members (n = 53; male = 36, female = 17) aged 47.38 ± 13.09 years reported their wellbeing at baseline and four follow-up points (FU1–FU4) across the pandemic. Results: there was significant quadratic growth in wellbeing (−1.248; p < 0.001) that varied between genders (p = 0.021). At baseline, male wellbeing scores were significantly lower (p = 0.020) than the UK population norm, but there were no significant differences at any other follow-up point. Female wellbeing was significantly lower than the UK population norm at baseline (p < 0.001), FU1 (p = 0.012) and FU2 (p < 0.001), but not FU3 and FU4. Conclusion: therapeutic community gardening can improve and maintain the wellbeing of individuals with mental illness, even when wellbeing is deteriorating nationally. Future research should further demonstrate the long-term and cost-effectiveness of interventions.

Background: Exposure to green space and feeling connected to the natural environment have independently been associated with improved mental health outcomes. During the coronavirus pandemic, people experienced restrictions on access to the outdoors, and health data indicated a decline in mental health in the UK general population. Methods: Data available from two independent surveys conducted prior to and during the pandemic enabled a naturally occurring comparison of mental health and its correlates prior to and during the pandemic. Results: Survey responses from 877 UK residents were included in the analyses. Independent t-tests revealed significant declines in mental health scores during the pandemic. After controlling for age and gender, greater nature connection significantly predicted lower depression and stress and improved well-being. Percentage of green space did not significantly predict any mental health outcomes. Further, time point (pre- or during COVID) and the interaction of time point with green space and nature connection did not significantly predict any of the outcome measures. The findings indicate that nature connection may play an important role in promoting mental health. Strategies to improve mental health and reduce mental illness should consider the role of nature connection and the use of interventions that involve direct interaction with natural environments.