背景:在社区和学校环境中,花园和花园干预已被证明赋予了几种社会心理,生理,和营养益处。然而,关于医疗保健花园对患者的实施和影响知之甚少,访客,以及员工的健康和福祉。这篇综述的主要目的是确定和描述在医疗保健环境中实施的花园类型和常见设计元素,以及这些花园对患者健康和福祉的影响,访客,和工作人员。次要目标是评估可用证据的质量。方法:PubMed,CINAHL,EMBASE,和PsycINFO于2022年10月28日进行了系统搜索。如果主要的定性和定量研究(不包括病例报告和研究)描述了在医疗保健环境中实施的花园类型和常见设计元素(医院,老年护理,康复设施,和医疗中心)和/或评估花园干预对患者健康和福祉的影响,访客,和工作人员。Review,选择,数据提取由两名独立研究人员进行,以叙事形式综合和呈现的发现。使用混合方法评估工具(MMAT)对文章进行了批判性评估。结果:共纳入18篇文献。八项研究提供了在医疗保健环境中实施的花园类型的详细描述(愈合[n=3],治疗性[n=2],感官[n=2],儿童童话花园[n=1],和丰富的[n=1]花园)。研究花园的社会心理影响是最常见的报道(n=16),其次是身体(n=4)和营养(n=2)。广泛的积极成果,主要与患者有关(n=12),据报道,包括压力的改善,生活质量(QOL),认知功能,身体活动,水果和蔬菜的摄入量。证据是异质的,质量低。结论:研究结果表明,在医疗机构中实施花园和花园干预措施可能会对患者的健康和福祉产生积极影响。访客,和工作人员。大多数研究与花园对患者心理健康和生活质量的影响有关,表明需要进一步研究以探索身体和营养结果,以及工作人员和访客的健康结果。研究结果还表明需要高质量的研究设计(例如,集群控制试验)和标准化测量工具。
Background: In community and school settings, gardens and garden interventions have been shown to confer several psychosocial, physiological, and nutritional benefits. However, little is known about the implementation and impact of health care gardens on patients, visitors, and staff health and well-being. The primary aim of this
review is to identify and describe the types of gardens and common design elements implemented in health care settings and the impact these gardens have on the health and well-being of patients, visitors, and staff. A secondary aim is to assess the quality of available evidence. Methods: PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were systematically searched on October 28, 2022. Primary qualitative and quantitative studies (excluding case reports and studies) were eligible for inclusion if they described the types of gardens and common design elements implemented in health care settings (hospitals, aged care, rehabilitation facilities, and medical centers) and/or assessed the impact of garden interventions on the health and well-being of patients, visitors, and staff.
Review, selection, and data extraction were conducted by two independent researchers, with findings synthesized and presented in narrative form. Articles were critically appraised using the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT). Results: Eighteen articles were included. Eight studies provided detailed descriptions of the types of gardens implemented in health care settings (healing [n = 3], therapeutic [n = 2], sensory [n = 2], children\'s fairy gardens [n = 1], and enriched [n = 1] gardens). Studies examining the psychosocial impacts of gardens were most frequently reported (n = 16), followed by physical (n = 4) and nutritional (n = 2). A wide range of positive outcomes, predominantly relating to patients (n = 12), were reported, including improvements in stress, quality of life (QOL), cognitive function, physical activity, and fruit and vegetable intake. The evidence was heterogeneous and low-medium quality. Conclusions: The findings suggest that implementing gardens and garden interventions in health care settings may positively impact the health and well-being of patients, visitors, and staff. Most studies related to the impact of gardens on patients\' mental health and QOL, indicating the need for further research to explore physical and nutritional outcomes, as well as health outcomes of staff and visitors. Findings also suggest the need for high-quality study designs (e.g., cluster control trials) and standardized measurement tools.