Greenspace exposure and associated health outcomes: a systematic review of reviews

Brittnee Bryer, Chinonso Christian Odebeatu, Wen Ray Lee, Kathryn Vitangcol, Victor Gallegos-Rejas, Nicholas J. Osborne, Gail Williams, Darsy Darssan
{"title":"Greenspace exposure and associated health outcomes: a systematic review of reviews","authors":"Brittnee Bryer, Chinonso Christian Odebeatu, Wen Ray Lee, Kathryn Vitangcol, Victor Gallegos-Rejas, Nicholas J. Osborne, Gail Williams, Darsy Darssan","doi":"10.12688/f1000research.148878.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have sought to clarify the relationship between greenspace exposure and health outcomes, but the results are inconsistent. We aimed to synthesise all relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses on this association. Methods We searched five databases (PubMed, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) and conducted a manual reference search for systematic reviews and meta-analyses written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals that used clearly defined measures of greenspace exposure and reported health outcomes directly attributable to greenspace exposure. A total of 36 systematic reviews published between January 2010 and December 2020 were identified for inclusion in this systematic review of reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42021227422). An updated review is underway, and the protocol is published in PROSPERO (CRD42022383421). The methodological quality and risk of bias of included systematic reviews were evaluated using the AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS tools, respectively. Results Beneficial effects of greenspace exposure were observed for all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality, and mental health and cognitive function. Ambivalent results were found for cardiovascular and metabolic health, general health and quality of life (QOL), and respiratory health and allergies. Most of the systematic reviews included in the current umbrella review had a low to moderate methodological quality and a high risk of bias. Conclusions This umbrella review highlights the link between greenspaces and a variety of health outcomes, emphasising the importance of preserving existing greenspaces and integrating additional vegetation into urban areas to maintain public health.","PeriodicalId":504605,"journal":{"name":"F1000Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"F1000Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.148878.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have sought to clarify the relationship between greenspace exposure and health outcomes, but the results are inconsistent. We aimed to synthesise all relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses on this association. Methods We searched five databases (PubMed, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) and conducted a manual reference search for systematic reviews and meta-analyses written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals that used clearly defined measures of greenspace exposure and reported health outcomes directly attributable to greenspace exposure. A total of 36 systematic reviews published between January 2010 and December 2020 were identified for inclusion in this systematic review of reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42021227422). An updated review is underway, and the protocol is published in PROSPERO (CRD42022383421). The methodological quality and risk of bias of included systematic reviews were evaluated using the AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS tools, respectively. Results Beneficial effects of greenspace exposure were observed for all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality, and mental health and cognitive function. Ambivalent results were found for cardiovascular and metabolic health, general health and quality of life (QOL), and respiratory health and allergies. Most of the systematic reviews included in the current umbrella review had a low to moderate methodological quality and a high risk of bias. Conclusions This umbrella review highlights the link between greenspaces and a variety of health outcomes, emphasising the importance of preserving existing greenspaces and integrating additional vegetation into urban areas to maintain public health.
绿地暴露与相关健康结果:系统性回顾综述
背景 大量系统综述和荟萃分析试图阐明绿地暴露与健康结果之间的关系,但结果并不一致。我们的目的是综合所有与这一关系相关的系统综述和荟萃分析。方法 我们检索了五个数据库(PubMed、Embase、《护理与联合健康文献累积索引》(CINAHL)、Scopus 和 Cochrane 系统性综述数据库),并进行了手动参考文献检索,以查找以英语撰写并发表在同行评审期刊上的系统性综述和荟萃分析,这些综述和分析使用了明确定义的绿地暴露测量方法,并报告了可直接归因于绿地暴露的健康结果。本系统性综述共纳入了 2010 年 1 月至 2020 年 12 月间发表的 36 篇系统性综述(PROSPERO:CRD42021227422)。更新后的综述正在进行中,综述方案已发布在 PROSPERO(CRD42022383421)上。采用 AMSTAR-2 和 ROBIS 工具分别对纳入的系统综述的方法学质量和偏倚风险进行了评估。结果 观察到绿地对全因死亡率、心血管疾病死亡率、心理健康和认知功能的有益影响。在心血管和新陈代谢健康、一般健康和生活质量(QOL)以及呼吸系统健康和过敏症方面则发现了不均衡的结果。纳入本综述的大多数系统综述的方法学质量为中低水平,偏倚风险较高。结论 本综述强调了绿地与各种健康结果之间的联系,强调了保护现有绿地并将更多植被纳入城市地区以维护公众健康的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信