A call to action: Improving urban green spaces to reduce health inequalities exacerbated by COVID-19.

Health is not equally distributed across society; there are avoidable, unfair, systematic differences in health between population groups. Some of these same groups (older people, BAME communities, those with some non-communicable diseases (NCDs)) may be particularly vulnerable to risk of exposure and severe COVID-19 outcomes due to co-morbidities, structural vulnerabilities, and public-facing or health and social care jobs among other factors. Additionally, some of the restrictions designed to reduce SARS-CoV-2 spread impact specifically on these same groups by limiting their activity and access to preventive or health promotion services. Greenspaces, accessed with social distancing, may mitigate some of the predicted negative health effects of COVID-19 restrictions. Maintaining or increasing publicly accessible urban greenspaces, particularly for marginalised groups, is reflected in the Sustainable Development Goals, and its importance amplified in the COVID-19 pandemic. Urban greenspaces should be considered a public health and social investment and a chance to rebalance our relationship with nature to protect against future pandemics. By investing in urban public greenspaces, additional benefits (job/food creation, biodiversity promotion, carbon sequestration) may coincide with health benefits. Realising these requires a shift in the balance of decision making to place weight on protecting, enhancing and providing more appropriate greenspaces designed with local communities. The current pandemic is a reminder that humanity placing too many pressures on nature has damaging consequences. COVID-19 economic recovery programs present an opportunity for sustainable transformation if they can be leveraged to simultaneously protect and restore nature and tackle climate change and health inequalities.

Participation in environmental enhancement and conservation activities for health and well-being in adults: a review of quantitative and qualitative evidence.

BACKGROUND: There is growing research and policy interest in the potential for using the natural environment to enhance human health and well-being. This resource may be underused as a health promotion tool to address the increasing burden of common health problems such as increased chronic diseases and mental health concerns. Outdoor environmental enhancement and conservation activities (EECA) (for instance unpaid litter picking, tree planting or path maintenance) offer opportunities for physical activity alongside greater connectedness with local environments, enhanced social connections within communities and improved self-esteem through activities that improve the locality which may, in turn, further improve well-being. OBJECTIVES: To assess the health and well-being impacts on adults following participation in environmental enhancement and conservation activities. SEARCH METHODS: We contacted or searched the websites of more than 250 EECA organisations to identify grey literature. Resource limitations meant the majority of the websites were from UK, USA, Canada and Australia. We searched the following databases (initially in October 2012, updated October 2014, except CAB Direct, OpenGrey, SPORTDiscus, and TRIP Database), using a search strategy developed with our project advisory groups (predominantly leaders of EECA-type activities and methodological experts): ASSIA; BIOSIS; British Education Index; British Nursing Index; CAB Abstracts; Campbell Collaboration; Cochrane Public Health Specialized Register; DOPHER; EMBASE; ERIC; Global Health; GreenFILE; HMIC; MEDLINE-in-Process; MEDLINE; OpenGrey; PsychINFO; Social Policy and Practice; SPORTDiscus; TRoPHI; Social Services Abstracts; Sociological Abstracts; The Cochrane Library; TRIP database; and Web of Science. Citation and related article chasing was used. Searches were limited to studies in English published after 1990. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently screened studies. Included studies examined the impact of EECA on adult health and well-being. Eligible interventions needed to include each of the following: intended to improve the outdoor natural or built environment at either a local or wider level; took place in urban or rural locations in any country; involved active participation; and were NOT experienced through paid employment.We included quantitative and qualitative research. Includable quantitative study designs were: randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs, quasi-RCTs, cluster quasi-RCTs, controlled before-and-after studies, interrupted-time-series, cohort studies (prospective or retrospective), case-control studies and uncontrolled before-and-after studies (uBA). We included qualitative research if it used recognised qualitative methods of data collection and analysis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One reviewer extracted data, and another reviewer checked the data. Two review authors independently appraised study quality using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool (for quantitative studies) or Wallace criteria (for qualitative studies). Heterogeneity of outcome measures and poor reporting of intervention specifics prevented meta-analysis so we synthesised the results narratively. We synthesised qualitative research findings using thematic analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Database searches identified 21,420 records, with 21,304 excluded at title/abstract. Grey literature searches identified 211 records. We screened 327 full-text articles from which we included 21 studies (reported in 28 publications): two case-studies (which were not included in the synthesis due to inadequate robustness), one case-control, one retrospective cohort, five uBA, three mixed-method (uBA, qualitative), and nine qualitative studies. The 19 studies included in the synthesis detailed the impacts to a total of 3,603 participants: 647 from quantitative intervention studies and 2630 from a retrospective cohort study; and 326 from qualitative studies (one not reporting sample size).Included studies shared the key elements of EECA defined above, but the range of activities varied considerably. Quantitative evaluation methods were heterogeneous. The designs or reporting of quantitative studies, or both, were rated as 'weak' quality with high risk of bias due to one or more of the following: inadequate study design, intervention detail, participant selection, outcome reporting and blinding.Participants' characteristics were poorly reported; eight studies did not report gender or age and none reported socio-economic status. Three quantitative studies reported that participants were referred through health or social services, or due to mental ill health (five quantitative studies), however participants' engagement routes were often not clear.Whilst the majority of quantitative studies (n = 8) reported no effect on one or more outcomes, positive effects were reported in six quantitative studies relating to short-term physiological, mental/emotional health, and quality-of-life outcomes. Negative effects were reported in two quantitative studies; one study reported higher levels of anxiety amongst participants, another reported increased mental health stress.The design or reporting, or both, of the qualitative studies was rated as good in three studies or poor in nine; mainly due to missing detail about participants, methods and interventions. Included qualitative evidence provided rich data about the experience of participation. Thematic analysis identified eight themes supported by at least one good quality study, regarding participants' positive experiences and related to personal/social identity, physical activity, developing knowledge, spirituality, benefits of place, personal achievement, psychological benefits and social contact. There was one report of negative experiences. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is little quantitative evidence of positive or negative health and well-being benefits from participating in EECA. However, the qualitative research showed high levels of perceived benefit among participants. Quantitative evidence resulted from study designs with high risk of bias, qualitative evidence lacked reporting detail. The majority of included studies were programme evaluations, conducted internally or funded by the provider.The conceptual framework illustrates the range of interlinked mechanisms through which people believe they potentially achieve health and well-being benefits, such as opportunities for social contact. It also considers potential moderators and mediators of effect.One main finding of the review is the inherent difficulty associated with generating robust evidence of effectiveness for complex interventions. We developed the conceptual framework to illustrate how people believed they benefited. Investigating such mechanisms in a subsequent theory-led review might be one way of examining evidence of effect for these activities.The conceptual framework needs further refinement through linked reviews and more reliable evidence. Future research should use more robust study designs and report key intervention and participant detail.

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

BACKGROUND: 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.

Beyond greenspace: an ecological study of population general health and indicators of natural environment type and quality.

BACKGROUND: Many studies suggest that exposure to natural environments ('greenspace') enhances human health and wellbeing. Benefits potentially arise via several mechanisms including stress reduction, opportunity and motivation for physical activity, and reduced air pollution exposure. However, the evidence is mixed and sometimes inconclusive. One explanation may be that "greenspace" is typically treated as a homogenous environment type. However, recent research has revealed that different types and qualities of natural environments may influence health and wellbeing to different extents. METHODS: This ecological study explores this issue further using data on land cover type, bird species richness, water quality and protected or designated status to create small-area environmental indicators across Great Britain. Associations between these indicators and age/sex standardised prevalence of both good and bad health from the 2011 Census were assessed using linear regression models. Models were adjusted for indicators of socio-economic deprivation and rurality, and also investigated effect modification by these contextual characteristics. RESULTS: Positive associations were observed between good health prevalence and the density of the greenspace types, "broadleaf woodland", "arable and horticulture", "improved grassland", "saltwater" and "coastal", after adjusting for potential confounders. Inverse associations with bad health prevalence were observed for the same greenspace types, with the exception of "saltwater". Land cover diversity and density of protected/designated areas were also associated with good and bad health in the predicted manner. Bird species richness (an indicator of local biodiversity) was only associated with good health prevalence. Surface water quality, an indicator of general local environmental condition, was associated with good and bad health prevalence contrary to the manner expected, with poorer water quality associated with better population health. Effect modification by income deprivation and urban/rural status was observed for several of the indicators. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that the type, quality and context of 'greenspace' should be considered in the assessment of relationships between greenspace and human health and wellbeing. Opportunities exist to further integrate approaches from ecosystem services and public health perspectives to maximise opportunities to inform policies for health and environmental improvement and protection.

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

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

A systematic review of the health and well-being benefits of biodiverse environments.

Recent ecosystem service models have placed biodiversity as a central factor in the processes that link the natural environment to health. While it is recognized that disturbed ecosystems might negatively affect human well-being, it is not clear whether biodiversity is related to or can promote "good" human health and well-being. The aim of this study was to systematically identify, summarize, and synthesize research that had examined whether biodiverse environments are health promoting. The objectives were twofold: (1) to map the interdisciplinary field of enquiry and (2) to assess whether current evidence enables us to characterize the relationship. Due to the heterogeneity of available evidence a narrative synthesis approach was used, which is textual rather than statistical. Extensive searches identified 17 papers that met the inclusion criteria: 15 quantitative and 2 qualitative. The evidence was varied in disciplinary origin, with authors approaching the question using different study designs and methods, and conceptualizations of biodiversity, health, and well-being. There is some evidence to suggest that biodiverse natural environments promote better health through exposure to pleasant environments or the encouragement of health-promoting behaviors. There was also evidence of inverse relationships, particularly at a larger scale (global analyses). However, overall the evidence is inconclusive and fails to identify a specific role for biodiversity in the promotion of better health. High-quality interdisciplinary research is needed to produce a more reliable evidence base. Of particular importance is identifying the specific ecosystem services, goods, and processes through which biodiversity may generate good health and well-being.

Valuing the health benefits of nature-based recreational physical activity in England.

Physical activity (PA) reduces the risk of several non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Natural environments support recreational PA. Using data including a representative cross-sectional survey of the English population, we estimated the annual value of nature-based PA conducted in England in 2019 in terms of avoided healthcare and societal costs of disease. Population-representative data from the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE) survey (n = 47,580; representing 44,386,756) were used to estimate the weekly volume of nature-based recreational PA by adults in England in 2019. We used epidemiological dose-response data to calculate incident cases of six NCDs (ischaemic heart disease (IHD), ischaemic stroke (IS), type 2 diabetes (T2D), colon cancer (CC), breast cancer (BC) and major depressive disorder (MDD)) prevented through nature-based PA, and estimated associated savings using published costs of healthcare, informal care and productivity losses. We investigated additional savings resulting from hypothetical increases in: (a) visitor PA and (b) visitor numbers. In 2019, 22million adults > 16 years of age in England visited natural environments at least weekly. At reported volumes of nature-based PA, we estimated that 550 cases of IHD, 168 cases of IS, 1,410 cases of T2D, 41 cases of CC, 37 cases of BC and 10,552 cases of MDD were prevented, creating annual savings of £108.7million (95 % uncertainty interval: £70.3million; £150.3million). Nature-based recreational PA in England results in reduced burden of disease and considerable annual savings through prevention of priority NCDs. Strategies that increase nature-based PA could lead to further reductions in the societal burden of NCDs.

The use of Enhanced Vegetation Index for assessing access to different types of green space in epidemiological studies.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to green space can protect against poor health through a variety of mechanisms. However, there is heterogeneity in methodological approaches to exposure assessments which makes creating effective policy recommendations challenging. OBJECTIVE: Critically evaluate the use of a satellite-derived exposure metric, the Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI), for assessing access to different types of green space in epidemiological studies. METHODS: We used Landsat 5-8 (30 m resolution) to calculate average EVI for a 300 m radius surrounding 1.4 million households in Wales, UK for 2018. We calculated two additional measures using topographic vector data to represent access to green spaces within 300 m of household locations. The two topographic vector-based measures were total green space area stratified by type and average private garden size. We used linear regression models to test whether EVI could discriminate between publicly accessible and private green space and Pearson correlation to test associations between EVI and green space types. RESULTS: Mean EVI for a 300 m radius surrounding households in Wales was 0.28 (IQR = 0.12). Total green space area and average private garden size were significantly positively associated with corresponding EVI measures (ß = < 0.0001, 95% CI: 0.0000, 0.0000; ß = 0.0001, 95% CI: 0.0001, 0.0001 respectively). In urban areas, as average garden size increases by 1 m2, EVI increases by 0.0002. Therefore, in urban areas, to see a 0.1 unit increase in EVI index score, garden size would need to increase by 500 m2. The very small ß values represent no 'measurable real-world' associations. When stratified by type, we observed no strong associations between greenspace and EVI. IMPACT: It is a widely implemented assumption in epidiological studies that an increase in EVI is equivalent to an increase in greenness and/or green space. We used linear regression models to test associations between EVI and potential sources of green reflectance at a neighbourhood level using satellite imagery from 2018. We compared EVI measures with a 'gold standard' vector-based dataset that defines publicly accessible and private green spaces. We found that EVI should be interpreted with care as a greater EVI score does not necessarily mean greater access to publicly available green spaces in the hyperlocal environment.

Jamestown Canyon virus (Bunyavirales: Peribunyaviridae) vector ecology in a focus of human transmission in New Hampshire, USA.

Jamestown Canyon virus disease (JCVD) is a potentially neuroinvasive condition caused by the arbovirus Jamestown Canyon virus (JCV). Human cases of JCVD have increased in New Hampshire (NH) over the past decade, but vector surveillance is limited by funding and person power. We conducted mosquito surveillance with a focus on human JCVD cases south central NH during 2021. Routine surveillance with CDC miniature traps baited with CO2 (lights removed) was supplemented by a paired trapping design to test the collection efficiency of octenol, and New Jersey light traps. We performed virus testing, blood meal analysis, and compared morphological identification with DNA barcoding. Over 50,000 mosquitoes were collected representing 28 species. Twelve JCV-positive pools were derived from 6 species of more than 1,600 pools tested. Of those, Aedes excrucians/stimulans (MLE 4.95, Diptera: Culicidae, Walker, 1856, 1848), and Aedes sticticus (MLE 2.02, Meigen, 1838) had the highest JCV infection rates, and Aedes canadensis (MLE 0.13, Theobold, 1901) and Coquillettidia perturbans (0.10, Diptera: Culicidae, Walker, 1856) had the lowest infection rates. One hundred and fifty-one blood meals were matched to a vertebrate host. All putative vectors fed on the amplifying host of JCV, white-tailed deer (36-100% of bloodmeals). Putative vectors that fed on human hosts included Aedes excrucians (8%), Anopheles punctipennis (25%, Diptera: Culicidae, Say, 1823), and Coquillettidia perturbans (51%). CDC traps baited with CO2 were effective for collecting putative vectors. DNA barcoding enhanced morphological identifications of damaged specimens. We present the first ecological overview of JCV vectors in NH.

Space-for-time substitutions in climate change ecology and evolution.

In an epoch of rapid environmental change, understanding and predicting how biodiversity will respond to a changing climate is an urgent challenge. Since we seldom have sufficient long-term biological data to use the past to anticipate the future, spatial climate-biotic relationships are often used as a proxy for predicting biotic responses to climate change over time. These 'space-for-time substitutions' (SFTS) have become near ubiquitous in global change biology, but with different subfields largely developing methods in isolation. We review how climate-focussed SFTS are used in four subfields of ecology and evolution, each focussed on a different type of biotic variable - population phenotypes, population genotypes, species' distributions, and ecological communities. We then examine the similarities and differences between subfields in terms of methods, limitations and opportunities. While SFTS are used for a wide range of applications, two main approaches are applied across the four subfields: spatial in situ gradient methods and transplant experiments. We find that SFTS methods share common limitations relating to (i) the causality of identified spatial climate-biotic relationships and (ii) the transferability of these relationships, i.e. whether climate-biotic relationships observed over space are equivalent to those occurring over time. Moreover, despite widespread application of SFTS in climate change research, key assumptions remain largely untested. We highlight opportunities to enhance the robustness of SFTS by addressing key assumptions and limitations, with a particular emphasis on where approaches could be shared between the four subfields.

What is known about what works in community-involved decision-making relating to urban green and blue spaces? A realist review protocol.

BACKGROUND: There is now a relatively well-established evidence base suggesting that greener living environments and time spent in urban green and blue spaces (UGBS) can be beneficial for human health and wellbeing. However, benefits are not universal and there remain widespread social inequalities in access to such resources and experiences, particularly along axes of class, race, ethnicity, age and disability, and in relation to efforts to increase the availability and accessibility of such spaces. These injustices often relate to distributive, procedural and recognition-based processes. There is growing interest in how to ensure that efforts to increase access to or use of UGBS (whether through infrastructural or social programmes) result in equitable outcomes whilst minimising potential for exacerbating existing inequalities and injustices. Community engagement is considered an important step towards more inclusive UGBS decision-making, from planning and design to management and maintenance processes. It is thought to contribute to better and more widely trusted decisions, enhanced democracy, community satisfaction, civic interest and feelings of green space ownership, and greater longevity of UGBS projects. However, uneven representation and barriers to participation can create imbalances and undermine these benefits. METHODS: An iterative, multi-stage realist-inspired review will be conducted to ask what works, in what context and in what ways relating to the meaningful involvement of communities in UGBS decision-making, focusing on the skills, capacities and capabilities of different stakeholders and the role of contexts and processes. 'Effectiveness' (or what works) will be understood as a multifaceted outcome, encompassing both the processes and results of community engagement efforts. Following a scoping stage to identify initial programme theory, inclusion/exclusion criteria and derive search terms, relevant databases and grey literature will be searched to identify interdisciplinary literature in two phases. The first phase will be used to further develop programme theories, which will be articulated as 'if then' statements. The second phase searches will be used to identify sources to further explore and evidence the programme and formal theory. We will assess all includable evidence for conceptual richness, prioritising more conceptually rich sources if needed. DISCUSSION: The realist synthesis will explore the key context, mechanism and outcome configurations that appear to explain if and how different approaches to community-involved UGBS decision-making are or are not effective. We will consider factors such as different conceptualisations of community, and if and how they have been involved in UGBS decision-making; the types of tools and approaches used; and the socio-cultural and political or governance structures within which decision-making takes place.

Visiting nature is associated with lower socioeconomic inequalities in well-being in Wales.

Natural environments can promote well-being through multiple mechanisms. Many studies have investigated relationships between residential green/blue space (GBS) and well-being, fewer explore relationships with actual use of GBS. We used a nationally representative survey, the National Survey for Wales, anonymously linked with spatial GBS data to investigate associations of well-being with both residential GBS and time in nature (N = 7631). Both residential GBS and time spent in nature were associated with subjective well-being. Higher green-ness was associated with lower well-being, counter to hypotheses (predicting the Warwick and Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS): Enhanced vegetation index ß = - 1.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 3.63, - 0.05) but time spent in nature was associated with higher well-being (four hours a week in nature vs. none ß = 3.57, 95% CI 3.02, 4.13). There was no clear association between nearest GBS proximity and well-being. In support of the equigenesis theory, time spent in nature was associated with smaller socioeconomic inequalities in well-being. The difference in WEMWBS (possible range 14-70) between those who did and did not live in material deprivation was 7.7 points for those spending no time in nature, and less at 4.5 points for those spending time in nature up to 1 h per week. Facilitating access and making it easier for people to spend time in nature may be one way to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in well-being.

Ambient greenness, access to local green spaces, and subsequent mental health: a 10-year longitudinal dynamic panel study of 2·3 million adults in Wales.

BACKGROUND: Living in greener areas, or close to green and blue spaces (GBS; eg, parks, lakes, or beaches), is associated with better mental health, but longitudinal evidence when GBS exposures precede outcomes is less available. We aimed to analyse the effect of living in or moving to areas with more green space or better access to GBS on subsequent adult mental health over time, while explicitly considering health inequalities. METHODS: A cohort of the people in Wales, UK (≥16 years; n=2 341 591) was constructed from electronic health record data sources from Jan 1, 2008 to Oct 31, 2019, comprising 19 141 896 person-years of follow-up. Household ambient greenness (Enhanced Vegetation Index [EVI]), access to GBS (counts, distance to nearest), and common mental health disorders (CMD, based on a validated algorithm combining current diagnoses or symptoms of anxiety or depression [treated or untreated in the preceding 1-year period], or treatment of historical diagnoses from before the current cohort [up to 8 years previously, to 2000], where diagnosis preceded treatment) were record-linked. Cumulative exposure values were created for each adult, censoring for CMD, migration out of Wales, death, or end of cohort. Exposure and CMD associations were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression, stratified by area-level deprivation. FINDINGS: After adjustment, exposure to greater ambient greenness over time (+0·1 increased EVI on a 0-1 scale) was associated with lower odds of subsequent CMD (adjusted odds ratio 0·80, 95% CI 0·80-0·81), where CMD was based on a combination of current diagnoses or symptoms (treated or untreated in the preceding 1-year period), or treatments. Ten percentile points more access to GBS was associated with lower odds of a later CMD (0·93, 0·93-0·93). Every additional 360 m to the nearest GBS was associated with higher odds of CMD (1·05, 1·04-1·05). We found that positive effects of GBS on mental health appeared to be greater in more deprived quintiles. INTERPRETATION: Ambient exposure is associated with the greatest reduced risk of CMD, particularly for those who live in deprived communities. These findings support authorities responsible for GBS, who are attempting to engage planners and policy makers, to ensure GBS meets residents' needs. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Public Health Research programme.

Green-blue space exposure changes and impact on individual-level well-being and mental health: a population-wide dynamic longitudinal panel study with linked survey data.

Background: Cross-sectional evidence suggests that living near green and blue spaces benefits mental health; longitudinal evidence is limited. Objectives: To quantify the impact of changes in green and blue spaces on common mental health disorders, well-being and health service use. Design: A retrospective, dynamic longitudinal panel study. Setting: Wales, UK. Participants: An e-cohort comprising 99,682,902 observations of 2,801,483 adults (≥ 16 years) registered with a general practice in Wales (2008-2019). A 5312-strong 'National Survey for Wales (NSW) subgroup' was surveyed on well-being and visits to green and blue spaces. Main outcome measures: Common mental health disorders, general practice records; subjective well-being, Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale. Data sources: Common mental health disorder and use of general practice services were extracted quarterly from the Welsh Longitudinal General Practice Dataset. Annual ambient greenness exposure, enhanced vegetation index and access to green and blue spaces (2018) from planning and satellite data. Data were linked within the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank. Methods: Multilevel regression models examined associations between exposure to green and blue spaces and common mental health disorders and use of general practice. For the National Survey for Wales subgroup, generalised linear models examined associations between exposure to green and blue spaces and subjective well-being and common mental health disorders. Results and conclusions: Our longitudinal analyses found no evidence that changes in green and blue spaces through time impacted on common mental health disorders. However, time-aggregated exposure to green and blue spaces contrasting differences between people were associated with subsequent common mental health disorders. Similarly, our cross-sectional findings add to growing evidence that residential green and blue spaces and visits are associated with well-being benefits: Greater ambient greenness (+ 1 enhanced vegetation index) was associated with lower likelihood of subsequently seeking care for a common mental health disorder [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval, (CI) 0.80 to 0.81] and with well-being with a U-shaped relationship [Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale; enhanced vegetation index beta (adjusted) -10.15, 95% CI -17.13 to -3.17; EVI2 beta (quadratic term; adj.) 12.49, 95% CI 3.02 to 21.97]. Those who used green and blue spaces for leisure reported better well-being, with diminishing extra benefit with increasing time (Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale: time outdoors (hours) beta 0.88, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.24, time outdoors2 beta -0.06, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.01) and had 4% lower odds of seeking help for common mental health disorders (AOR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.99). Those in urban areas benefited most from greater access to green and blue spaces (AOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.89). Those in material deprivation benefited most from leisure time outdoors (until approximately four hours per week; Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale: time outdoorsâ€…× in material deprivation: 1.41, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.43; time outdoors2 × in material deprivation -0.18, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.04) although well-being remained generally lower. Limitations: Longitudinal analyses were restricted by high baseline levels and limited temporal variation in ambient greenness in Wales. Changes in access to green and blue spaces could not be captured annually due to technical issues with national-level planning datasets. Future work: Further analyses could investigate mental health impacts in population subgroups potentially most sensitive to local changes in access to specific types of green and blue spaces. Deriving green and blue spaces changes from planning data is needed to overcome temporal uncertainties. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (Project number 16/07/07) and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 11, No. 10. Sarah Rodgers is part-funded by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration North West Coast.

We investigated whether people who live near or visit green (parks, woodlands) and blue (riversides, beaches) spaces have fewer common mental health disorders (anxiety or depression), and better well-being. We considered whether changes in the amount of green and blue space around the home affected people's mental health. We assessed the availability of local green and blue spaces. Annual exposure and access to local green and blue spaces were extracted from planning and satellite data. We linked these data to anonymised health records of 2,801,483 adults registered with a general practice from 2008 to 2019, and to survey answers about leisure visits to natural environments and well-being. We found: people who lived in greener and bluer areas were less likely to seek help for a common mental health disorder than those in less green or blue areas, with those living in the most deprived areas benefiting the most people who used green and blue spaces for leisure, especially those with the greatest levels of deprivation, had better well-being and were less likely to seek help for common mental health disorders no evidence that changing amounts of green and blue space affected how likely people were to seek help for common mental health disorders; this may be because we found mostly small changes in green and blue space, and we may not have allowed enough time between moving home and recording mental health. We found evidence for relationships between green and blue space and mental health. However, some analyses were restricted due to lack of data on changes in green and blue spaces. An important finding was that people in deprived communities appear to benefit the most. Provision of green and blue spaces could be a strategy to improve the mental health of people living in disadvantaged areas.

Nature-based biopsychosocial resilience: An integrative theoretical framework for research on nature and health.

Nature-based solutions including urban forests and wetlands can help communities cope better with climate change and other environmental stressors by enhancing social-ecological resilience. Natural ecosystems, settings, elements and affordances can also help individuals become more personally resilient to a variety of stressors, although the mechanisms underpinning individual-level nature-based resilience, and their relations to social-ecological resilience, are not well articulated. We propose 'nature-based biopsychosocial resilience theory' (NBRT) to address these gaps. Our framework begins by suggesting that individual-level resilience can refer to both: a) a person's set of adaptive resources; and b) the processes by which these resources are deployed. Drawing on existing nature-health perspectives, we argue that nature contact can support individuals build and maintain biological, psychological, and social (i.e. biopsychosocial) resilience-related resources. Together with nature-based social-ecological resilience, these biopsychosocial resilience resources can: i) reduce the risk of various stressors (preventive resilience); ii) enhance adaptive reactions to stressful circumstances (response resilience), and/or iii) facilitate more rapid and/or complete recovery from stress (recovery resilience). Reference to these three resilience processes supports integration across more familiar pathways involving harm reduction, capacity building, and restoration. Evidence in support of the theory, potential interventions to promote nature-based biopsychosocial resilience, and issues that require further consideration are discussed.

Global prevalence of and risk factors for irritable bowel syndrome: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Many cross-sectional surveys have reported the prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), but there have been no recent systematic review of data from all studies to determine its global prevalence and risk factors. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and EMBASE Classic were searched (until October 2011) to identify population-based studies that reported the prevalence of IBS in adults (≥15 years old); IBS was defined by using specific symptom-based criteria or questionnaires. The prevalence of IBS was extracted for all studies and based on the criteria used to define it. Pooled prevalence, according to study location and certain other characteristics, odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: Of the 390 citations evaluated, 81 reported the prevalence of IBS in 80 separate study populations containing 260,960 subjects. Pooled prevalence in all studies was 11.2% (95% CI, 9.8%-12.8%). The prevalence varied according to country (from 1.1% to 45.0%) and criteria used to define IBS. The greatest prevalence values were calculated when ≥3 Manning criteria were used (14%; 95% CI, 10.0%-17.0%); by using the Rome I and Rome II criteria, prevalence values were 8.8% (95% CI, 6.8%-11.2%) and 9.4% (95% CI, 7.8%-11.1%), respectively. The prevalence was higher for women than men (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.53-1.82) and lower for individuals older than 50 years, compared with those younger than 50 (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.92). There was no effect of socioeconomic status, but only 4 studies reported these data. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of IBS varies among countries, as well as criteria used to define its presence. Women are at slightly higher risk for IBS than men. The effects of socioeconomic status have not been well described.

Effect of gender on prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome in the community: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is thought to be commoner in women. However, no systematic review has confirmed whether this is the case, or assessed whether any proposed female preponderance remains stable according to geography and criteria used to define IBS. Nor has effect of gender on subtype of IBS been examined systematically. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and EMBASE Classic were searched (up to October 2011) to identify population-based studies reporting prevalence of IBS in adults (≥15 years) according to gender, and defined using symptom-based criteria, or questionnaire. The prevalence of IBS in women and men was extracted for all studies, and according to study location and diagnostic criteria used, and compared using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Prevalence of each subtype of IBS, according to predominant stool pattern, was compared in women and men with IBS. RESULTS: Of the 390 papers evaluated, 56 studies containing 188,229 subjects were eligible. The OR for IBS in women, compared with men, in all studies was 1.67 (95% CI: 1.53-1.82). Prevalence of IBS was not significantly higher in women, compared with men, in South Asian, South American, or African studies. The OR was highest with the Rome I criteria (1.99; 95% CI: 1.76-2.25), and lowest with the Rome II criteria (1.40; 95% CI: 1.24-1.59). Women with IBS were more likely to exhibit the constipation-predominant subtype (OR: 2.38; 95% CI: 1.45-3.92), and less likely to meet criteria for the diarrhea-predominant subtype (OR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.32-0.65) than men with IBS. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of IBS appeared modestly higher in women, and this remained relatively stable according to geography and criteria used to define its presence. However, among individuals with IBS, subtypes varied according to gender.

Prevalence of gastro-esophageal reflux-type symptoms in individuals with irritable bowel syndrome in the community: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and gastro-esophageal reflux-type symptoms (GERS) are highly prevalent in the general population, and the two appear to be related. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the prevalence of GERS in individuals with IBS, and to quantify the overlap between the two disorders. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and EMBASE Classic were searched (up to October 2011) to identify population-based studies reporting the prevalence of IBS and GERS in adults (≥ 15 years), defined using a specific symptom-based criteria or a questionnaire. The prevalence of IBS and GERS were extracted for all studies. Pooled prevalence, according to study location and criteria used to define IBS or GERS, as well as odds ratios (OR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. The degree of overlap between the two was examined. RESULTS: Of 390 papers evaluated, 81 reported prevalence of IBS. Thirteen of these, containing 49,939 participants, reported the proportion of individuals with GERS. The prevalence of GERS in IBS was 42.0% (95% CI, 30.0-55.0). The pooled OR for GERS in individuals with IBS, compared with those without, was 4.17 (95% CI, 2.85-6.09). The OR for GERS in IBS remained significantly higher in all geographical regions studied, and for all diagnostic criteria used. The degree of overlap between the two conditions varied from 14.2, when the Rome II criteria for IBS were used, to 26.7% with the Manning criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The OR of GERS in individuals with IBS was four-fold that of individuals without IBS. Reasons for this remain speculative, but may include shared pathophysiological mechanisms or residual confounding.

GroundsWell: Community-engaged and data-informed systems transformation of Urban Green and Blue Space for population health - a new initiative.

Natural environments, such as parks, woodlands and lakes, have positive impacts on health and wellbeing. Urban Green and Blue Spaces (UGBS), and the activities that take place in them, can significantly influence the health outcomes of all communities, and reduce health inequalities. Improving access and quality of UGBS needs understanding of the range of systems (e.g. planning, transport, environment, community) in which UGBS are located. UGBS offers an ideal exemplar for testing systems innovations as it reflects place-based and whole society processes , with potential to reduce non-communicable disease (NCD) risk and associated social inequalities in health. UGBS can impact multiple behavioural and environmental aetiological pathways. However, the systems which desire, design, develop, and deliver UGBS are fragmented and siloed, with ineffective mechanisms for data generation, knowledge exchange and mobilisation. Further, UGBS need to be co-designed with and by those whose health could benefit most from them, so they are appropriate, accessible, valued and used well. This paper describes a major new prevention research programme and partnership, GroundsWell, which aims to transform UGBS-related systems by improving how we plan, design, evaluate and manage UGBS so that it benefits all communities, especially those who are in poorest health. We use a broad definition of health to include physical, mental, social wellbeing and quality of life. Our objectives are to transform systems so that UGBS are planned, developed, implemented, maintained and evaluated with our communities and data systems to enhance health and reduce inequalities. GroundsWell will use interdisciplinary, problem-solving approaches to accelerate and optimise community collaborations among citizens, users, implementers, policymakers and researchers to impact research, policy, practice and active citizenship. GroundsWell will be shaped and developed in three pioneer cities (Belfast, Edinburgh, Liverpool) and their regional contexts, with embedded translational mechanisms to ensure that outputs and impact have UK-wide and international application.