↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of the health and well-being impacts of school gardening: synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, March 2016
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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
90 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
160 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
461 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
A systematic review of the health and well-being impacts of school gardening: synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence
Published in
BMC Public Health, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-2941-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heather Ohly, Sarah Gentry, Rachel Wigglesworth, Alison Bethel, Rebecca Lovell, Ruth Garside

Abstract

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. 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. 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. More robust quantitative research is needed to convincingly support the qualitative evidence suggesting wide ranging benefits from school gardens.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 90 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 461 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Nepal 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 457 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 79 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 49 11%
Student > Bachelor 48 10%
Researcher 43 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 31 7%
Other 87 19%
Unknown 124 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 62 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 55 12%
Psychology 46 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 37 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 7%
Other 83 18%
Unknown 148 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 85. 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 03 January 2023.
All research outputs
#498,515
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#467
of 17,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,153
of 314,736 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#10
of 208 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,511 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. 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 314,736 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 208 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 95% of its contemporaries.