Dataset Information

Blue care: a systematic review of blue space interventions for health and wellbeing.

ABSTRACT: There is increasing interest in the potential use of outdoor water environments, or blue space, in the promotion of human health and wellbeing. However, therapeutic nature-based practices are currently outpacing policy and the evidence base for health or wellbeing benefits of therapeutic interventions within blue space has not been systematically assessed. This systematic review aims to address the gap in understanding the impacts of blue space within existing interventions for targeted individuals. A systematic review was carried out, searching Google Scholar, SCOPUS, PubMed, etc. through to August 2017. Only blue space interventions were included that were specifically designed and structured with a therapeutic purpose for individuals with a defined need and did not include nature-based promotion projects or casual recreation in the outdoors. Thirty-three studies met the inclusion criteria and were assessed. Overall, the studies suggest that blue care can have direct benefit for health, especially mental health and psycho-social wellbeing. The majority of papers found a positive or weak association between blue care and health and wellbeing indicators. There was also some evidence for greater social connectedness during and after interventions, but results were inconsistent and mixed across studies with very few findings for physical health. This is the first systematic review of the literature on blue care. In summary, it has been shown that mental health, especially psycho-social wellbeing, can be improved with investment in blue spaces. Key areas for future research include improving understanding of the mechanisms through which blue care can improve public health promotion.

SUBMITTER: Britton E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7245048 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Blue care: a systematic review of blue space interventions for health and wellbeing.

Britton Easkey E Kindermann Gesche G Domegan Christine C Carlin Caitriona C

Health promotion international 20200201 1

There is increasing interest in the potential use of outdoor water environments, or blue space, in the promotion of human health and wellbeing. However, therapeutic nature-based practices are currently outpacing policy and the evidence base for health or wellbeing benefits of therapeutic interventions within blue space has not been systematically assessed. This systematic review aims to address the gap in understanding the impacts of blue space within existing interventions for targeted individu ...[more]

PMID: 30561661

Similar Datasets

Project description:Children in foster care have high rates of adverse childhood experiences and are at risk for mental health problems. These problems can be difficult to ameliorate, creating a need for rigorous intervention research. Previous research suggests that intervening with children in foster care can be challenging for several reasons, including the severity and complexity of their mental health problems, and challenges engaging this often transitory population in mental health services. The goal of this article was to systematically review the intervention research that has been conducted with children in foster care, and to identify future research directions. This review was conducted on mental health interventions for children, ages 0 to 12, in foster care, using ERIC, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ProQuest's Dissertation and Theses Database, Social Services Abstracts, and Social Work Abstracts. It was restricted to interventions that are at least "possibly efficacious" (i.e., supported by evidence from at least one randomized controlled trial). Studies were evaluated for risk of bias. Ten interventions were identified, with diverse outcomes, including mental health and physiological. Six interventions were developed for children in foster care. Interventions not developed for children in foster care were typically adapted to the foster context. Most interventions have yet to be rigorously evaluated in community-based settings with children in foster care. Little research has been conducted on child and family engagement within these interventions, and there is a need for more research on moderators of intervention outcomes and subgroups that benefit most from these interventions. In addition, there is not consensus regarding how to adapt interventions to this population. Future research should focus on developing and testing more interventions with this population, rigorously evaluating their effectiveness in community-based settings, determining necessary adaptations, and identifying which interventions work best for whom.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral countries around the world have implemented multicomponent interventions to enhance primary care, as a way of strengthening their health systems to cope with an aging chronically ill population and rising costs. Some of these efforts have included technology-based enhancements as one of the features to support the overall intervention, but their details and impacts have not been explored.ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify the role of digital/health technologies within wider multifeature interventions that are aimed at enhancing primary care, and to describe their aims and stakeholders, types of technologies used, and potential impacts.MethodsA systematic review was performed following Cochrane guidelines. An electronic search, conducted on May 30, 2019, was supplemented with manual and grey literature searches in December 2019, to identify multicomponent interventions that included at least one technology-based enhancement. After title/abstract and full text screening, selected articles were assessed for quality based on their study design. A descriptive narrative synthesis was used for analysis and presentation of the results.ResultsOf 37 articles, 14 (38%) described the inclusion of a technology-based innovation as part of their multicomponent interventions to enhance primary care. The most commonly identified technologies were the use of electronic health records, data monitoring technologies, and online portals with messaging platforms. The most common aim of these technologies was to improve continuity of care and comprehensiveness, which resulted in increased patient satisfaction, increased primary care visits compared to specialist visits, and the provision of more health prevention education and improved prescribing practices. Technologies seem also to increase costs and utilization for some parameters, such as increased consultation costs and increased number of drugs prescribed.ConclusionsTechnologies and digital health have not played a major role within comprehensive innovation efforts aimed at enhancing primary care, reflecting that these technologies have not yet reached maturity or wider acceptance as a means for improving primary care. Stronger policy and financial support, and advocacy of key stakeholders are needed to encourage the introduction of efficient technological innovations, which are backed by evidence-based research, so that digital technologies can fulfill the promise of supporting strong sustainable primary care.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The workplace environment potentially provides access to a large population who are employed, and it is an employer's responsibility to provide appropriate conditions for its employees. Whilst the aetiology of cardiovascular disease is multifactorial, it is generally acknowledged that working conditions, gender and age are involved in its development. Male-dominated industries (comprising > 70% male workers, e.g., agriculture, construction, manufacturing, mining, transport and technology) have a higher prevalence of health risk behaviours than other population subgroups. Working in a gender-dominated industry can impact an employee's health and wellbeing, particularly for the opposite sex. This systematic review examines workplace interventions that address the health and wellbeing of employees in male-dominated industries. METHODS:We will include randomised controlled trials and studies with non-randomised intervention groups. The interventions must aim to improve employee physical and/or mental health and wellbeing implemented in the workplace in male-dominated industries. There will be no limits on date. The following electronic databases will be searched for published studies: Web of Science, Embed, MedLine, PsycInfo and the Cochrane Database. The search strategy will include free-text terms and MeSH vocabulary, including 'male-dominated industries', 'workplace interventions', 'occupational stress', 'mental health', 'cardiovascular disease', 'blood pressure', 'body mass index' and 'exercise'. Two authors will independently select, review and extract data from studies that meet the inclusion criteria. The Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool will be used to assess risk of bias. We will perform structured summaries of the included studies and, if possible, conduct meta-analyses or construct an Albatross plot. DISCUSSION:There are an increasing number of interventions designed to improve employee health and wellbeing in the workplace, but no prior review that systematically evaluates their effectiveness. A systematic review is required to prioritise the future implementation of those interventions found to be most effective. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42019161283.

Project description:BACKGROUND: A systematic review may evaluate different aspects of a health care intervention. To accommodate the evaluation of various research questions, the inclusion of more than one study design may be necessary. One aim of this study is to find and describe articles on methodological issues concerning the incorporation of multiple types of study designs in systematic reviews on health care interventions. Another aim is to evaluate methods studies that have assessed whether reported effects differ by study types. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Methodology Register on 31 March 2012 and identified 42 articles that reported on the integration of single or multiple study designs in systematic reviews. We summarized the contents of the articles qualitatively and assessed theoretical and empirical evidence. We found that many examples of reviews incorporating multiple types of studies exist and that every study design can serve a specific purpose. The clinical questions of a systematic review determine the types of design that are necessary or sufficient to provide the best possible answers. In a second independent search, we identified 49 studies, 31 systematic reviews and 18 trials that compared the effect sizes between randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials, which were statistically different in 35%, and not different in 53%. Twelve percent of studies reported both, different and non-different effect sizes. CONCLUSIONS: Different study designs addressing the same question yielded varying results, with differences in about half of all examples. The risk of presenting uncertain results without knowing for sure the direction and magnitude of the effect holds true for both nonrandomized and randomized controlled trials. The integration of multiple study designs in systematic reviews is required if patients should be informed on the many facets of patient relevant issues of health care interventions.

Dataset Information

Blue care: a systematic review of blue space interventions for health and wellbeing.

Publications

Blue care: a systematic review of blue space interventions for health and wellbeing.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets