Negotiating Complexity: Challenges to Implementing Community-Led Nature-Based Solutions in England Pre- and Post-COVID-19.

Nature-based solutions (NbS), including green social prescribing (GSP), are sustainable ways to address health and wellbeing, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the strain on healthcare. NbS require national and local cross-sector coordination across complex, interrelated systems, but little is known about the specific challenges this poses for community-led NbS. We carried out a traditional literature review to establish the context and knowledge base for this study and interviewed 26 stakeholders. These came from environment, health and social care sectors at national and local levels, with local-level stakeholders from Bradford and Walsall: English cities significantly affected by the pandemic, with high levels of deprivation and health inequality. The interviews explored experiences of implementing NbS, both pre- and post-pandemic and the resulting renewed interest in the salutogenic effects of engaging with natural environments. We coded the interview transcriptions using NVivo to identify the challenges existing in the systems within which these stakeholders operate to create and manage NbS. By synthesizing what is known about the challenges from existing literature with findings from the interviews, we developed eight categories of challenges (perception and knowledge, political, financial, access to natural spaces, engagement, institutional and organisational, coordination, GSP referral and services) faced by multiple sectors in implementing community-led NbS in England. Furthermore, this study highlights the new challenges related to the pandemic. Identifying these challenges helps stakeholders in existing complex systems recognise what is needed to support and mainstream NbS in England.

Assessment of complications associated with casting of acute distal radius fractures in adults.

PURPOSE: Controversy exists regarding the closed treatment of distal radius fractures. Circumferential casting of acute distal radius fractures has been shown to be safe in children, however, little research has demonstrated its safety in adults. The purpose of this study was to assess the risk of complications associated with casting acute distal radius fractures in adult patients. METHODS: Patients with a distal radius fracture treated by a single hand surgeon at a level 1 trauma center were retrospectively reviewed over a 3-year period. Patients were evaluated in the emergency room and were provisionally immobilized either with short-arm fiberglass casts or with splints. Patients were followed for a minimum of 4 weeks. Complication rates associated with casting were recorded, including rates of compartment syndrome and acute carpal tunnel syndrome. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients were included in this study. A total of 30 patients met inclusion criteria for placement of a short arm cast in the Emergency Department. Mean patient age was 63.2 years. The majority of patients sustained their injuries from a ground level fall. A minority of patients had radiographic evidence of intra-articular extension or underwent a reduction prior to casting. There were no patients who developed compartment syndrome or acute carpal tunnel syndrome as a result from the casting. The majority of patients did not require a cast change for at least 4 weeks. None of our patients went on to surgery. CONCLUSION: There were no major complications associated with casting of acute, low energy distal radius fractures in this series of 30 adult patients. While further studies with larger numbers of patients are necessary to establish safety of casting, this study suggests that casting may be a safe and effective treatment for low-energy distal radius fractures in adult patients presenting with a normal neurovascular exam. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective comparative study, Level III.

Twenty Important Research Questions in Microbial Exposure and Social Equity.

Social and political policy, human activities, and environmental change affect the ways in which microbial communities assemble and interact with people. These factors determine how different social groups are exposed to beneficial and/or harmful microorganisms, meaning microbial exposure has an important socioecological justice context. Therefore, greater consideration of microbial exposure and social equity in research, planning, and policy is imperative. Here, we identify 20 research questions considered fundamentally important to promoting equitable exposure to beneficial microorganisms, along with safeguarding resilient societies and ecosystems. The 20 research questions we identified span seven broad themes, including the following: (i) sociocultural interactions; (ii) Indigenous community health and well-being; (iii) humans, urban ecosystems, and environmental processes; (iv) human psychology and mental health; (v) microbiomes and infectious diseases; (vi) human health and food security; and (vii) microbiome-related planning, policy, and outreach. Our goal was to summarize this growing field and to stimulate impactful research avenues while providing focus for funders and policymakers.

Population-level linkages between urban greenspace and health inequality: The case for using multiple indicators of neighbourhood greenspace.

Exposure to greenspace in urban environments is associated with a range of improved health and well-being outcomes. There is a need to understand which aspects of greenspace influence which components of health. We investigate the relationship of indicators of greenspace quantity (total and specific types of greenspace), accessibility and quality with poor general health, depression, and severe mental illness, in the city of Sheffield, UK. We find complex relationships with multiple greenspace indicators that are different for each health measure, highlighting a need for future studies to include multiple, nuanced indicators of neighbourhood greenspace in order to produce results that can inform planning and policy guidance.

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

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.