Indoor Nature Interventions for Health and Wellbeing of Older Adults in Residential Settings: A Systematic Review

Yeo, Nicola L; Elliott, Lewis R.; Bethel, Alison; White, Mathew P.; Dean, Sarah; Garside, Ruth

doi:10.1093/geront/gnz019

Cited by 39 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, this study has thus not systematically addressed issues of intervention efficacy, effectiveness, and efficiency. While systematic analyses of efficacy and efficiency are as yet not possible for many intervention types because of a high level of variation in the methods used, outcomes measured within the literature to date (but see, e.g., [51]), and co–benefits realised by indirect means (e.g., parks along rivers may support nature experiences and also protect homes from flooding), such evaluations will be important avenues for future research. Finally, it bears mentioning that the recognition of the possibilities with nature–based interventions is engendering considerable innovation, as with the development of therapeutic gardens for new client groups (e.g., war veterans [196]) and the use of nature experience to support the acquisition of mindfulness meditation techniques [197,198].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nature–Based Interventions for Improving Health and Wellbeing: The Purpose, the People and the Outcomes

Shanahan¹,

Astell–Burt

Barber

et al. 2019

Sports

182

173

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Engagement with nature is an important part of many people’s lives, and the health and wellbeing benefits of nature–based activities are becoming increasingly recognised across disciplines from city planning to medicine. Despite this, urbanisation, challenges of modern life and environmental degradation are leading to a reduction in both the quantity and the quality of nature experiences. Nature–based health interventions (NBIs) can facilitate behavioural change through a somewhat structured promotion of nature–based experiences and, in doing so, promote improved physical, mental and social health and wellbeing. We conducted a Delphi expert elicitation process with 19 experts from seven countries (all named authors on this paper) to identify the different forms that such interventions take, the potential health outcomes and the target beneficiaries. In total, 27 NBIs were identified, aiming to prevent illness, promote wellbeing and treat specific physical, mental or social health and wellbeing conditions. These interventions were broadly categorized into those that change the environment in which people live, work, learn, recreate or heal (for example, the provision of gardens in hospitals or parks in cities) and those that change behaviour (for example, engaging people through organized programmes or other activities). We also noted the range of factors (such as socioeconomic variation) that will inevitably influence the extent to which these interventions succeed. We conclude with a call for research to identify the drivers influencing the effectiveness of NBIs in enhancing health and wellbeing.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nature–Based Interventions for Improving Health and Wellbeing: The Purpose, the People and the Outcomes

Shanahan¹,

Astell–Burt

Barber

et al. 2019

Sports

182

173

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Evaluating the psychological benefits of each opportunity and their underlying pathways toward supporting mental health is a critical step toward buffering the burden of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thereafter, such an understanding could inform biophilic design in settings where outdoor mobility is necessarily limited (i.e., clinical settings, workplaces, schools, and military/space-missions) ( Nadkarni et al, 2017 ; Yeo et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does greenery experienced indoors and outdoors provide an escape and support mental health during the COVID-19 quarantine?

Dzhambov

Lercher

Browning

et al. 2021

Environmental Research

204

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly changed people's ability to recreate in public green spaces, which is likely to exacerbate the psychological impacts of the pandemic. In the current study, we seek to understand whether greenery can support mental health even with insufficient outdoor exposure in times of physical isolation from the outdoor environment. Methods Between 17 May and 10 June, 2020, we conducted an online survey among 323 students (21.99 ± 3.10 years; 31% male) in health-related programs from two universities in the city of Plovdiv, Bulgaria. Severities of depressive and anxiety symptoms over the past two weeks were measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale. We employed two self-reported measures of greenery experienced indoors (number of houseplants in the home and proportion of exterior greenery visible from inside the home) and two measures of greenery experienced outdoors (presence/absence of a domestic garden and availability of neighborhood greenery). Restorative quality of the home (the “being away” dimension of the Perceived Restorativeness Scale; PRS) and the neighborhood (the “being away” and “fascination” dimensions of the PRS), engagement with outdoor greenery (frequency of different types of interaction) and perceived social support were treated as mediators. Associations between greenery and mental health were tested using generalized linear regression and logistic regression. Structural equation modelling (SEM) techniques were used to test the theoretically-indicated relations among the variables. Results Clinically-meaningful symptoms of moderate depression and anxiety were reported by approximately 33% and 20% of the students, respectively. The relative abundance of greenery visible from the home or in the neighborhood was associated with reduced depressive/anxiety symptoms and lower depression/anxiety rates. Having more houseplants or a garden was also associated with some of these markers of mental health. As hypothesized, the mental health-supportive effects of indoor greenery were largely explained by increased feelings of being away while at home. Neighborhood greenery contributed to neighborhood restorative quality, which in turn facilitated social support and more frequent engagement with greenery, and that led to better mental health. Conclusions Students who spent most of their time at home during the COVID-19 epidemic experienced better mental health when exposed to more greenery. Our findings support the idea that exposure to greenery may be a valuable resource during social isolation in the home. However, causal interpretation of these associations is not straightforward.

show abstract

“…Public parks and gardens, being the most visited form of green space among urban residents in the UK [ 1 ], contribute to wellbeing by providing opportunities to experience nature, engage in physical activity, and feel a sense of social belonging and develop social interactions [ 2 – 7 ]. There are an increasing number of studies that explore health benefits of parks using various measures based on spatial proximity [ 8 – 10 ], density (number of parks within a certain distance from home or any other population boundary) [ 9 , 11 , 12 ], crowdedness [ 13 , 14 ], quality and facilities [ 15 – 17 ], or a combination of the above [ 18 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accessibility and allocation of public parks and gardens in England and Wales: A COVID-19 social distancing perspective

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visiting parks and gardens supports physical and mental health. We quantified access to public parks and gardens in urban areas of England and Wales, and the potential for park crowdedness during periods of high use. We combined data from the Office for National Statistics and Ordnance Survey to quantify (i) the number of parks within 500 and 1,000 metres of urban postcodes (i.e., availability), (ii) the distance of postcodes to the nearest park (i.e., accessibility), and (iii) per-capita space in each park for people living within 1,000m. We examined variability by city and share of flats. Around 25.4 million people (~87%) can access public parks or gardens within a ten-minute walk, while 3.8 million residents (~13%) live farther away; of these 21% are children and 13% are elderly. Areas with a higher share of flats on average are closer to a park but people living in these areas visit parks that are potentially overcrowded during periods of high use. Such disparity in urban areas of England and Wales becomes particularly evident during COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown when local parks, the only available out-of-home space option, hinder social distancing requirements. Cities aiming to facilitate social distancing while keeping public green spaces safe might require implementing measures such as dedicated park times for different age groups or entry allocation systems that, combined with smartphone apps or drones, can monitor and manage the total number of people using the park.

show abstract

Indoor Nature Interventions for Health and Wellbeing of Older Adults in Residential Settings: A Systematic Review

Cited by 39 publications

References 57 publications

Nature–Based Interventions for Improving Health and Wellbeing: The Purpose, the People and the Outcomes

Nature–Based Interventions for Improving Health and Wellbeing: The Purpose, the People and the Outcomes

Does greenery experienced indoors and outdoors provide an escape and support mental health during the COVID-19 quarantine?

Accessibility and allocation of public parks and gardens in England and Wales: A COVID-19 social distancing perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About