Search results

AbstractCausal loop diagrams (CLDs) are often used to provide an overview of important systemic elements related to an issue, rather than to inform empirical evaluations (studies which assess changes following an intervention using observed data). We suggest that empirical evaluations may benefit from the development of systems‐informed research propositions (specific testable causal assumptions with an emphasis on feedback loops) used to guide subsequent data collection, hypothesis testing and interpretation. We describe a qualitative systems‐thinking informed approach building on preexisting CLDs, published evidence, and expert/stakeholder consultation and reflect on our experience applying this to the early stages of two nature‐based solution (NBS) evaluations. We reflect on our experience and suggest that CLDs can be usefully employed to develop systems‐informed research propositions to inform subsequent empirical evaluation. This may lead to novel policy‐relevant research propositions which differ substantially from effectiveness‐oriented ("did it work?") research questions. © 2023 The Authors. System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society.

Involving and engaging the public are crucial for effective prioritisation, dissemination and implementation of research about the complex interactions between environments and health. Involvement is also important to funders and policy makers who often see it as vital for building trust and justifying the investment of public money. In public health research, 'the public' can seem an amorphous target for researchers to engage with, and the short-term nature of research projects can be a challenge. Technocratic and pedagogical approaches have frequently met with resistance, so public involvement needs to be seen in the context of a history which includes contested truths, power inequalities and political activism. It is therefore vital for researchers and policy makers, as well as public contributors, to share best practice and to explore the challenges encountered in public involvement and engagement. This article presents a theoretically informed case study of the contributions made by the Health and Environment Public Engagement Group to the work of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Environmental Change and Health (HPRU-ECH). We describe how Health and Environment Public Engagement Group has provided researchers in the HPRU-ECH with a vehicle to support access to public views on multiple aspects of the research work across three workshops, discussion of ongoing research issues at meetings and supporting dissemination to local government partners, as well as public representation on the HPRU-ECH Advisory Board. We conclude that institutional support for standing public involvement groups can provide conduits for connecting public with policy makers and academic institutions. This can enable public involvement and engagement, which would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve in individual short-term and unconnected research projects.

IntroductionGreen-blue spaces (GBS), such as parks, woodlands, and beaches, may be beneficial for population mental health and wellbeing. However, there are few longitudinal studies on the association between GBS and mental health and wellbeing, and few that incorporate network analysis as opposed to simple Euclidian proximity.
Objectives and ApproachWe are examining the association between the availability of GBS with wellbeing and common mental health disorders. We will use geographic information systems (GIS) to create quarterly household level GBS availability data using digital map and satellite data (2008-2018) for over 1 million homes in Wales, United Kingdom. We will link GBS availability to individual level mental health (1.7 million people with General Practitioner (GP) data) and data from the National Survey for Wales (n = 24,000) on wellbeing (Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS)) using the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) databank.
ResultsWe created an historic dataset of GBS availability using road network and path data to create quarterly household level GBS exposures (2008-2018). We tested Residential Anonymised Linking Fields (RALFs) and accurately linked 97\% of individuals and their health data to their home and GBS exposure. The 1.65 million exposure-health data pairs, updated quarterly, will enable a longitudinal panel study to be built. Using GP recorded data on treatments, diagnoses, symptoms and prescriptions for mental health problems we identified 35,000 people had a common mental health disorder in 2016, and 24,000 people answered the National Survey for Wales questions about their wellbeing and use of GBS. We will explore how house moves, and visits to GBS change the association between GBS availability and outcomes.
Conclusion/ImplicationsThis study fills the gap in the evidence base around environmental planning policy to shape living environments to benefit health. It will inform the planning and management of GBS in urban and rural environments and contribute to international work on impacts of the built environment on mental health and wellbeing.

IntroductionGreen and blue spaces (GBS), such as parks, woodlands, rivers, and beaches, are thought to be important for mental health and wellbeing. Our longitudinal cohort contains objective household-level environment data linked at the invidual level to routinely recorded mental health data, augmented with cross sectional self-reported health behaviours, including leisure visits to the outdoors.
Objectives and ApproachOur overall approach will evaluate if residential proximity to GBS is associated with mental health and wellbeing, and if any associations aremodified by visits to outdoors spaces following individual-level data linkage. Here, we examined cross-sectional survey data on time spent visiting nature outdoors. Wellbeing outcomes were assessed using self-reported scores. Data were analysed using generalised additive models in the SAIL Databank.
ResultsUsing a sample of National Survey for Wales respondents (2016/17, n=3,481), over 40% of adults in Wales reported spending less than 30 minutes outdoors each week. Weekly time outdoors was positively associated with wellbeing (p=0.007) and life satisfaction (p=0.03) having adjusted for potential confounders including, age, rurality, loneliness, employment status. Confidence intervals varied along the fitted GAM model. Models using a second wave of survey data (n≈7,000), anonymously record-linked to residential environment and health data will explore these associations further.
ConclusionA previous study based in England (White et al. 2019) found an upper wellbeing benefit threshold of 2 hours per week for time spent in nature. This was not apparent in our preliminary models, but may be revealed in further analyses. We will next incorporate longitudinal mental health and environmental data for 2 million adults living in Wales, UK. Linking to ambient and accessible residential GBS, while taking into account changes due to migration and actual visits, will allow us to provide valuable guidance to local government, who are often responsible for provisioning and maintaining outdoor facilities.

Varied categorisations of residential distance to bluespace in population health studies make comparisons difficult. Using survey data from eighteen countries, we modelled relationships between residential distance to blue spaces (coasts, lakes, and rivers), and self-reported recreational visits to these environments at least weekly, with penalised regression splines. We observed exponential declines in visit probability with increasing distance to all three environments and demonstrated the utility of derived categorisations. These categories may be broadly applicable in future research where the assumed underlying mechanism between residential distance to a blue space and a health outcome is direct recreational contact. ; This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 666773.