↓ Skip to main content

Understanding how environmental enhancement and conservation activities may benefit health and wellbeing: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
59 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
158 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Understanding how environmental enhancement and conservation activities may benefit health and wellbeing: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-2214-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca Lovell, Kerryn Husk, Chris Cooper, Will Stahl-Timmins, Ruth Garside

Abstract

Action taken to enhance or conserve outdoor environments may benefit health and wellbeing through the process of participation but also through improving the environment. There is interest, amongst both health and environmental organisations, in using such activities as health promotion interventions. The objective of this systematic review was to investigate the health and wellbeing impacts of participation in environmental enhancement and conservation activities and to understand how these activities may be beneficial, to whom and in what circumstances or contexts. A theory-led mixed-method systematic review was used to assess evidence of effect and to identify pathways to change (protocol: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ 10.1002/14651858.CD010351/full ). Due to the multi-disciplinary, dispersed and disparate body of evidence an extensive multi-stage search strategy was devised and undertaken. Twenty-seven databases and multiple sources of grey literature were searched and over 200 relevant organisations were contacted. The heterogenous evidence was synthesised using a narrative approach and a conceptual model was developed to illustrate the mechanisms of effect. Due to the limited nature of the evidence additional higher order evidence was sought to assess the plausibility of the proposed mechanisms of effect through which health and wellbeing may accrue. The majority of the quantitative evidence (13 studies; all poor quality and lower-order study designs) was inconclusive, though a small number of positive and negative associations were observed. The qualitative evidence (13 studies; 10 poor quality, 3 good) indicated that the activities were perceived to have value to health and wellbeing through a number of key mechanisms; including exposure to natural environments, achievement, enjoyment and social contact. Additional high level evidence indicated that these pathways were plausible. Despite interest in the use of environmental enhancement activities as a health intervention there is currently little direct evidence of effect, this is primarily due to a lack of robust study designs. Further rigorous research is needed to understand the potential of the activities to benefit health and environment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 59 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 155 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 18%
Student > Master 21 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 11%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Other 10 6%
Other 29 18%
Unknown 38 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 22 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 13%
Environmental Science 19 12%
Psychology 17 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 6%
Other 26 16%
Unknown 45 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 January 2019.
All research outputs
#967,632
of 25,506,250 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,059
of 17,654 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,145
of 279,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#20
of 326 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,506,250 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,654 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,228 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 326 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.