↓ Skip to main content

Domestic gardens and self-reported health: a national population study

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Health Geographics, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#16 of 607)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
77 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 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
Domestic gardens and self-reported health: a national population study
Published in
International Journal of Health Geographics, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12942-018-0148-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul Brindley, Anna Jorgensen, Ravi Maheswaran

Abstract

There is a growing recognition of the health benefits of the natural environment. Whilst domestic gardens account for a significant proportion of greenspace in urban areas, few studies, and no population level studies, have investigated their potential health benefits. With gardens offering immediate interaction with nature on our doorsteps, we hypothesise that garden size will affect general health-with smaller domestic gardens associated with poorer health. A small area ecological design was undertaken using two separate analyses based on data from the 2001 and 2011 UK census. The urban population of England was classified into 'quintiles' based on deprivation (Index of Multiple Deprivation) and average garden size (Generalised Land Use Database). Self-reported general health was obtained from the UK population census. We controlled for greenspace exposure, population density, air pollution, house prices, smoking, and geographic location. Models were stratified to explore the associations. Smaller domestic gardens were associated with a higher prevalence of self-reported poor health. The adjusted prevalence ratio of poor self-reported general health for the quintile with smallest average garden size was 1.13 (95% CI 1.12-1.14) relative to the quintile with the largest gardens. Additionally, the analysis suggested that income-related inequalities in health were greater in areas with smaller gardens. The adjusted prevalence ratio for poor self-reported general health for the most income deprived quintile compared against the least deprived was 1.72 (95% CI 1.64-1.79) in the areas with the smallest gardens, compared to 1.31 (95% CI 1.21-1.42) in areas with the largest gardens. Residents of areas with small domestic gardens have the highest levels of poor health/health inequality related to income deprivation. Although causality needs to be confirmed, the implications for new housing are that adequate garden sizes may be an important means of reducing socioeconomic health inequalities. These findings suggest that the trend for continued urban densification and new housing with minimal gardens could have adverse impacts on health.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 77 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 119 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 16%
Researcher 19 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 4%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 24 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 27 23%
Environmental Science 15 13%
Psychology 8 7%
Design 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 6%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 34 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 58. 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 10 May 2021.
All research outputs
#494,483
of 19,047,010 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Health Geographics
#16
of 607 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,469
of 291,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Health Geographics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,047,010 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 607 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 291,148 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 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them