Department of Environmental Studies, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA.
Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
Lancet Planet Health. 2023 Jan;7(1):e23-e32. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00303-5.
Unhealthy diet, physical inactivity, and social disconnection are important modifiable risk factors for non-communicable and other chronic diseases, which might be alleviated through nature-based community interventions. We tested whether a community gardening intervention could reduce these common health risks in an adult population that is diverse in terms of age, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.
In this observer-blind, randomised, controlled trial, we recruited individuals who were on Denver Urban Garden waiting lists for community gardens in Denver and Aurora (CO, USA), aged 18 years or older, and had not gardened in the past 2 years. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a randomised block design in block sizes of two, four, or six, to receive a community garden plot (intervention group) or remain on a waiting list and not garden (control group). Researchers were masked to group allocation. Primary outcomes were diet, physical activity, and anthropometry; secondary outcomes were perceived stress and anxiety. During spring (April to early June, before randomisation; timepoint 1 [T1]), autumn (late August to October; timepoint 2 [T2]), and winter (January to March, after the intervention; timepoint 3 [T3]), participants completed three diet recalls, 7-day accelerometry, surveys, and anthropometry. Analyses were done using the intention-to-treat principle (ie, including all participants randomly assigned to groups, and assessed as randomised). We used mixed models to test time-by-intervention hypotheses at an α level of 0·04, with T2 and T3 intervention effects at an α level of 0·005 (99·5% CI). Due to potential effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on outcomes, we excluded all participant data collected after Feb 1, 2020. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03089177, and data collection is now complete.
Between Jan 1, 2017, and June 15, 2019, 493 adults were screened and 291 completed baseline measures and were randomly assigned to the intervention (n=145) or control (n=146) groups. Mean age was 41·5 years (SD 13·5), 238 (82%) of 291 participants were female, 52 (18%) were male, 99 (34%) identified as Hispanic, and 191 (66%) identified as non-Hispanic. 237 (81%) completed measurements before the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. One (<1%) participant in the intervention group had an adverse allergic event in the garden. Significant time-by-intervention effects were observed for fibre intake (p=0·034), with mean between-group difference (intervention minus control) at T2 of 1·41 g per day (99·5% CI -2·09 to 4·92), and for moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (p=0·012), with mean between-group difference of 5·80 min per day (99·5% CI -4·44 to 16·05). We found no significant time-by-intervention interactions for combined fruit and vegetable intake, Healthy Eating Index (measured using Healthy Eating Index-2010), sedentary time, BMI, and waist circumference (all p>0·04). Difference score models showed greater reductions between T1 and T2 in perceived stress and anxiety among participants in the intervention group than among those in the control group.
Community gardening can provide a nature-based solution, accessible to a diverse population including new gardeners, to improve wellbeing and important behavioural risk factors for non-communicable and chronic diseases.
American Cancer Society, University of Colorado Cancer Centre, University of Colorado Boulder, National Institutes of Health, US Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Michigan AgBioResearch Hatch projects.
不健康的饮食、缺乏身体活动和社会脱节是非传染性疾病和其他慢性疾病的重要可改变风险因素,这些因素可以通过基于自然的社区干预措施得到缓解。我们测试了社区园艺干预是否可以减少多样化的成年人(在年龄、种族和社会经济地位方面)中这些常见的健康风险。
在这项观察者盲法、随机对照试验中,我们招募了丹佛城市花园候补名单上的成年人,他们年龄在 18 岁或以上,且在过去 2 年内没有园艺经验。参与者被随机分配(1:1),使用随机块设计,块大小为 2、4 或 6,以获得一个社区花园地块(干预组)或继续候补名单,不进行园艺(对照组)。研究人员对分组分配情况不知情。主要结果是饮食、身体活动和人体测量学;次要结果是感知压力和焦虑。在春季(4 月至 6 月初,随机分组前;时间点 1 [T1])、秋季(8 月下旬至 10 月;时间点 2 [T2])和冬季(1 月至 3 月,干预后;时间点 3 [T3]),参与者完成了三次饮食回忆、7 天加速计测量、问卷调查和人体测量学。分析采用意向治疗原则(即包括所有随机分组的参与者,并按照随机分组进行评估)。我们使用混合模型测试时间与干预的假设(即在 T2 和 T3 干预效应的 α 水平为 0.005(99.5%CI)时,时间与干预的假设)。由于 COVID-19 大流行对结果的潜在影响,我们排除了 2020 年 2 月 1 日后收集的所有参与者数据。本研究在 ClinicalTrials.gov 注册,NCT03089177,现在数据收集已经完成。
2017 年 1 月 1 日至 2019 年 6 月 15 日,共有 493 名成年人接受了筛查,其中 291 名完成了基线测量并被随机分配到干预组(n=145)或对照组(n=146)。平均年龄为 41.5 岁(SD 13.5),291 名参与者中,238 名(82%)为女性,52 名(18%)为男性,99 名(34%)为西班牙裔,191 名(66%)为非西班牙裔。237 名(81%)人在 COVID-19 大流行开始前完成了测量。干预组中有 1 名(<1%)参与者在花园中出现了过敏反应。在纤维摄入量方面,观察到显著的时间与干预的相互作用(p=0.034),T2 时的组间差异(干预组减去对照组)为每天 1.41 克(99.5%CI -2.09 至 4.92),在中等到剧烈体力活动方面,观察到显著的时间与干预的相互作用(p=0.012),每天的组间差异为 5.80 分钟(99.5%CI -4.44 至 16.05)。我们没有发现综合水果和蔬菜摄入量、健康饮食指数(使用健康饮食指数-2010 进行测量)、久坐时间、BMI 和腰围(均 p>0.04)的时间与干预的显著相互作用。差异评分模型显示,干预组参与者的感知压力和焦虑评分在 T1 到 T2 之间的下降幅度大于对照组。
社区园艺可以为包括新园丁在内的多样化人群提供一种基于自然的解决方案,以改善幸福感和非传染性疾病及其他慢性疾病的重要行为风险因素。
美国癌症协会、科罗拉多大学癌症中心、科罗拉多大学博尔德分校、美国国立卫生研究院、美国农业部国家食品和农业研究所、密歇根农业生物研究帽项目。