Dataset Information

A Qualitative Analysis of UK Wetland Visitor Centres as a Health Resource.

ABSTRACT: The health benefits associated with spending time in natural environments have been highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdowns and restrictions to safeguard public health have exacerbated the pre-existing mental health crisis and rise of non-communicable diseases. Thus, the importance of nature as a health resource has been elevated, hastening calls for a better understanding of how health benefits might differ across user groups and nature provisions. In this regard, urban green spaces have become the greatest research focus; however, blue spaces, especially inland freshwater (e.g., wetlands), remain less studied. First-hand user experiences are also under-represented. This exploratory study examines the motivations and benefits of active wetland centre users in the UK, both during and after visits. Responses to three open-ended questions were collated online from 385 participants, and a qualitative content analysis was conducted based on an existing taxonomy from users of urban green spaces. The results showed strong motivations to visit due to the biodiversity at the site (mainly the birdlife), while less tangible nature (e.g., fresh air) and amenities were also important. In contrast to other studies on natural environments, physical activity was a less influential motivation. Salient derived effects included positive and intensely positive emotions, relaxation and mental restoration. After visits to wetland centres, feelings of vitality and satisfaction were the most prominent effects that emerged. For decision-makers looking to leverage inland blue spaces for public health benefit, our results highlight the broad range and relative prominence of the reasons for use and the associated perceived health benefits derived by users of UK wetland centres. They highlight how biodiversity, abiotic nature and good amenities are important qualities to consider when planning, managing and encouraging people to use natural environments for health benefit, qualities that may also provide important environmental co-benefits.

SUBMITTER: Reeves JP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8392124 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSmoking is a public health concern and an avoidable cause of morbidity and mortality. Widening tobacco control policies might help shift social norms, the acceptability of exposing others to second-hand smoke, and cultural attitudes towards smoking. This study explored patient, staff, and visitor viewpoints of smoking within the grounds of a National Health Service hospital.MethodsAnalysis of free text responses given as part of a larger repeat cross sectional questionnaire study. Free text qualitative responses analysed using thematic analysis. Pinderfields Hospital, a UK National Health Service hospital in the county of Yorkshire, provides a health service to around half a million people living in the Wakefield and North Kirklees area. Surveys were distributed 10th-18th September and 17th-21st December 2012. Of the n=952 participants who completed an anonymous survey n=306 participants provided a response to the optional free text question.ResultsThematic analysis revealed 5 distinct themes: (1) smoking is a dirty problem; (2) smokers are free to do as they wish; (3) the poor smoker; (4) smoke in our space: the battleground; and (5) no smoking please. Of the n=272 represented by the five themes, generally people accepted that smoking is socially unacceptable but their understanding of smoking behaviours and attitudes towards management and control of smoking differed. There was a strong sense that action is needed to separate the space smokers and non-smokers share. We identified a distinct group of participants that supported a hard line approach and suggested enforcing the no smoking policy through fines and monitoring.ConclusionsSmoking on hospital grounds remains a contentious issue. Participants acknowledge that smoking is an increasingly unacceptable social behaviour but their understanding and acceptance of smokers vary. There is a strong sense of dislike about the impact of smoke and smokers on the shared hospital environment, with a focus on the hospital entrance. Participants suggest separating smokers and non-smokers and moving smokers away from the hospital entrance with the introduction of smoking shelters. These results suggest a complex narrative that should be investigated further to inform the implementation of the no-smoking policy across hospital settings.

Project description:The provision of peer support as a component of mental health care, including the employment of Peer Workers (consumer-providers) by mental health service organisations, is increasingly common internationally. Peer support is strongly advocated as a strategy in a number of UK health and social care policies. Approaches to employing Peer Workers are proliferating. There is evidence to suggest that Peer Worker-based interventions reduce psychiatric inpatient admission and increase service user (consumer) empowerment. In this paper we seek to address a gap in the empirical literature in understanding the organisational challenges and benefits of introducing Peer Worker roles into mental health service teams.We report the secondary analysis of qualitative interview data from service users, Peer Workers, non-peer staff and managers of three innovative interventions in a study about mental health self-care. Relevant data was extracted from interviews with 41 participants and subjected to analysis using Grounded Theory techniques. Organisational research literature on role adoption framed the analysis.Peer Workers were highly valued by mental health teams and service users. Non-peer team members and managers worked hard to introduce Peer Workers into teams. Our cases were projects in development and there was learning from the evolutionary process: in the absence of formal recruitment processes for Peer Workers, differences in expectations of the Peer Worker role can emerge at the selection stage; flexible working arrangements for Peer Workers can have the unintended effect of perpetuating hierarchies within teams; the maintenance of protective practice boundaries through supervision and training can militate against the emergence of a distinctive body of peer practice; lack of consensus around what constitutes peer practice can result in feelings for Peer Workers of inequality, disempowerment, uncertainty about identity and of being under-supported.This research is indicative of potential benefits for mental health service teams of introducing Peer Worker roles. Analysis also suggests that if the emergence of a distinctive body of peer practice is not adequately considered and supported, as integral to the development of new Peer Worker roles, there is a risk that the potential impact of any emerging role will be constrained and diluted.

Project description:BackgroundLittle is understood of the consequences of restrictive visitor policies that were implemented in hospitals to minimize risk of infection during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this study was to describe physician experiences with these policies and reflections of their effects.MethodsWe conducted semistructured phone interviews from September 2020 to March 2021 with physicians practising in Ontario hospitals, recruited via professional networks and snowball sampling. We audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed interviews to describe and interpret overarching themes by thematic analysis.ResultsWe interviewed 21 physicians (5 intensivists, 5 internists, 11 specialists in palliative care). Four main thematic categories emerged, including provider, system, patient and caregiver effects. Provider-related factors included increased time and effort on communication with a need to establish limits; increased effort to develop rapport with caregivers; lack of caregiver input on patient care; the need to act as a caregiver surrogate; and the emotional toll of being a gatekeeper or advocate for visitors, exacerbated by lack of evidence for restrictions and inconsistent enforcement. System effects included the avoidance of hospital admission and decreased length of stay, leading to readmissions, increased deaths at home and avoidance of transfer to other facilities with similar policies. Patient-related factors included isolation and dying alone; lack of caregiver advocacy; and prioritization of visitor presence that, at times, resulted in a delay or withdrawal of aspects of care. Caregiver-related factors included inability to personally assess patient health, leading to poor understanding of patient status and challenging decision-making; perceived inadequate communication; difficulty accessing caregiver supports; and increased risk of complicated grief. Participants highlighted a disproportionate effect on older adults and people who did not speak English.InterpretationOur study highlights substantial negative consequences of restrictive visitor policies, with heightened effects on older adults and people who did not speak English. Research is required to identify whether the benefits of visitor restrictions on infection control outweigh the numerous deleterious consequences to patients, families and care providers.

Project description:(1) To explore existing knowledge of, and attitudes, to group B meningococcal disease and serogroup B meningococcal (MenB) vaccine among parents of young children. (2) To seek views on their information needs.Cross-sectional qualitative study using individual and group interviews conducted in February and March 2015, prior to the introduction of MenB vaccine (Bexsero) into the UK childhood immunisation schedule.Community centres, mother and toddler groups, parents' homes and workplaces in London and Yorkshire.60 parents of children under 2?years of age recruited via mother and baby groups and via an advert posted to a midwife-led Facebook group.Although recognising the severity of meningitis and septicaemia, parents' knowledge of group B meningococcal disease and MenB vaccine was poor. While nervous about fever, most said they would take their child for MenB vaccination despite its link to fever. Most parents had liquid paracetamol at home. Many were willing to administer it after MenB vaccination as a preventive measure, although some had concerns. There were mixed views on the acceptability of four vaccinations at the 12-month booster visit; some preferred one visit, while others favoured spreading the vaccines over two visits. Parents were clear on the information they required before attending the immunisation appointment.The successful implementation of the MenB vaccination programme depends on its acceptance by parents. In view of parents' recognition of the severity of meningitis and septicaemia, and successful introduction of other vaccines to prevent bacterial meningitis and septicaemia, the MenB vaccination programme is likely to be successful. However, the need for additional injections, the likelihood of post-immunisation fever and its management are issues about which parents will need information and reassurance from healthcare professionals. Public Health England has developed written information for parents, informed by these findings.

Project description:BackgroundAround 105 million people in India will be living in informal settlements by 2017. We investigated the effects of local resource centres delivering integrated activities to improve women's and children's health in urban informal settlements.MethodsIn a cluster-randomised controlled trial in 40 clusters, each containing around 600 households, 20 were randomly allocated to have a resource centre (intervention group) and 20 no centre (control group). Community organisers in the intervention centres addressed maternal and neonatal health, child health and nutrition, reproductive health, and prevention of violence against women and children through home visits, group meetings, day care, community events, service provision, and liaison. The primary endpoints were met need for family planning in women aged 15-49 years, proportion of children aged 12-23 months fully immunised, and proportion of children younger than 5 years with anthropometric wasting. Census interviews with women aged 15-49 years were done before and 2 years after the intervention was implemented. The primary intention-to-treat analysis compared cluster allocation groups after the intervention. We also analysed the per-protocol population (all women with data from both censuses) and assessed cluster-level changes. This study is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN56183183, and Clinical Trials Registry of India, number CTRI/2012/09/003004.Findings12 614 households were allocated to the intervention and 12 239 to control. Postintervention data were available for 8271 women and 5371 children younger than 5 years in the intervention group, and 7965 women and 5180 children in the control group. Met need for family planning was greater in the intervention clusters than in the control clusters (odds ratio [OR] 1·31, 95% CI 1·11-1·53). The proportions of fully immunised children were similar in the intervention and control groups in the intention-to-treat analysis (OR 1·30, 95% CI 0·84-2·01), but were greater in the intervention group when assessed per protocol (1·73, 1·05-2·86). Childhood wasting did not differ between groups (OR 0·92, 95% CI 0·75-1·12), although improvement was seen at the cluster level in the intervention group (p=0·020).InterpretationThis community resource model seems feasible and replicable and may be protocolised for expansion.FundingWellcome Trust, CRY, Cipla.

Dataset Information

A Qualitative Analysis of UK Wetland Visitor Centres as a Health Resource.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets