Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorOhly, H
dc.contributor.authorGentry, S
dc.contributor.authorWigglesworth, R
dc.contributor.authorBethel, A
dc.contributor.authorLovell, R
dc.contributor.authorGarside, R
dc.date.accessioned2016-11-11T10:37:31Z
dc.date.issued2016-03-25
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: School gardening programmes are increasingly popular, with suggested benefits including healthier eating and increased physical activity. Our objectives were to understand the health and well-being impacts of school gardens and the factors that help or hinder their success. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence (PROSPERO CRD42014007181). We searched multiple databases and used a range of supplementary approaches. Studies about school gardens were included if they reported on physical or mental health or well-being. Quantitative studies had to include a comparison group. Studies were quality appraised using appropriate tools. Findings were narratively synthesised and the qualitative evidence used to produce a conceptual framework to illustrate how benefits might be accrued. RESULTS: Evidence from 40 articles (21 quantitative studies; 16 qualitative studies; 3 mixed methods studies) was included. Generally the quantitative research was poor. Evidence for changes in fruit and vegetable intake was limited and based on self-report. The qualitative research was better quality and ascribed a range of health and well-being impacts to school gardens, with some idealistic expectations for their impact in the long term. Groups of pupils who do not excel in classroom activities were thought to particularly benefit. Lack of funding and over reliance on volunteers were thought to threaten success, while involvement with local communities and integration of gardening activities into the school curriculum were thought to support success. CONCLUSION: More robust quantitative research is needed to convincingly support the qualitative evidence suggesting wide ranging benefits from school gardens.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipThe European Centre for Environment and Human Health (part of the University of Exeter Medical School) is part financed by the European Regional Development Fund Programme 2007 to 2013 and European Social Fund Convergence Programme for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. RG is partially supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for the South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC).en_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 16, article 286en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12889-016-2941-0
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/24379
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherBioMed Centralen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27015672en_GB
dc.relation.urlhttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/24378en_GB
dc.rightsThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.en_GB
dc.subjectGardensen_GB
dc.subjectHealthen_GB
dc.subjectMixed methodsen_GB
dc.subjectSchoolen_GB
dc.subjectSystematic reviewen_GB
dc.subjectWell-beingen_GB
dc.titleA systematic review of the health and well-being impacts of school gardening: synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidenceen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2016-11-11T10:37:31Z
exeter.place-of-publicationEnglanden_GB
dc.descriptionThis is the final version of the article. Available from BioMed Central via the DOI in this record.en_GB
dc.descriptionThe Erratum to this article has been published in BMC Public Health 2016 16:1051en_GB
dc.descriptionAn erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3736-z. and is in ORE at http://hdl.handle.net/10871/24378en_GB
dc.identifier.journalBMC Public Healthen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record