Table 3.
Studies addressing health outcomes included in this review
| First author, year | Country,setting | Study design | Sample characteristics (inclusion criteria, number, age and sex) | Aims | Sampling methods | Intervention/ Community garden program | Data collection Analysis (including adjustments) | Outcomes | Results | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Algert et al. 2016 [28] | USA, CA, San Jose | Cross-sectional survey |
Two groups: Characteristics Community gardeners: n = 85 Female: 84% Age (mean (± SD): 49 (± 13)y Home gardeners (HG) n = 50 Female: 50% Age (mean (± SD): 58 (± 12)y |
To compare whether the two groups of gardeners (community and home) increased their vegetable intake while gardening |
1) CG: Face-to-face recruitment at 4 separate allotments 2) La Mesa Verde (LMV): Recruited through existing home gardening project for low-income families Response rate not reported |
Participants in 1) San Jose’s CG program which provides space to grow food, socialize and learn about gardening) 2) Local govt. funded (LMV; home gardening project) which provides raised beds, soil, seeds and plants; instruction on organic gardening workshops |
T-tests and Chi-square test comparing home and community gardeners No adjustments |
Self-reported health status (BRFSS) and BMI |
Self-reported health Community gardeners: Excellent to very good 35% Good 48% Fair/poor 17% Home gardeners: Excellent to very good 45% Good 35% Fair/poor 20% BMI Community gardeners: 26.3 ± 5.3 Home gardeners: 28.5 ± 6.0 |
|
| Barnidge et al. 2015 [29] | USA, rural Missouri, Dunklin (COM) and Pemiscot (INT) counties | Quasi-experimental study |
Total n = 794 (397 COM; 397 INT) Characteristics INT group Female: 62.7–63.2% COM group: Female: 65.0–71.3% Age: 38.8–41.7y Inclusion criteria African American, ≥ 18 yrs, residing in COM or INT county |
To examine effect of INT on BP, self-reported BMI, F&V consumption (Mid-intervention results) |
Cross-sectional surveys at each time point in INT and COM county Recruited from “places frequented by African American adults (e.g. comm. org or church)”, fliers posted |
MOTMGC (Men on the Move Growing Communities) – existing CG, nutrition education activities; access to healthy food through CG (participants did not do gardening themselves); 3 production gardens |
Self-administered survey Logistic regression examined changes prevalence of hypertension and BMI between INT and COM counties; models age, education, employment and income incl. in models to calculate adjusted changes over time between counties |
BP directly measured BMI from self-reported height and weight |
Odds of hypertension: Decreased in INT county (OR: 0.52; 95%CIs: 0.38–0.71) but not in COM county (OR: 1.11; 95%CIs: 0.81–1.54) in fully adjusted models Odds of being overweight or obese: Declined in INT county (OR: 0.73; 95%CIs: 0.52–1.02) but not in COM county (OR: 1.30; 95%CIs: 0.89–1.91) in fully adjusted models |
|
| Brown et al. 2020 [25] | USA, Montana, Native American community |
RCT (1) INT: Group-based CG program (2) CON: No gardening |
Native Americans with prediabetes or diabetes N = 20 Age (y): 15/20 were 45–64 years, 5/25 25–44 years Male n (%): 4/20 (25%) CON n = 12 INT n = 8 |
Determine feasibility of a group gardening program and potential for collecting health outcomes | Convenience sample of participant expressing an interest in the gardening study at a diabetes clinic |
Raised beds for gardening chosen for proximity to college and health centre. Plus 10 × 90-min structured sessions with hands-on gardening and food preparation activities Outcomes measured at 7 months after baseline |
Outcomes were reported as medians and ranges. Change from baseline was compared between the groups using Wilcoxon rank sum tests. No adjustments Missing information on some outcomes |
Weight, BMI, HbA1c, systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP) |
BMI INT (n = 8): -0.69 [-1.9, 0.3] CON (n = 12): 0[-2.0, 3.0] P = 0.838 SBP INT (n = 7) -1.0 [-6.0, 16.0] CON (n = 12) -9.0 [-28, 24] P = 0.444 DBP INT (n = 7) -6.0 [-18.0, 12.0] CON (n = 12) -3.0 [-22, 10] P = 0.983 HbA1c INT (n = 8) -0.25 [-0.06, 0.9] CON (n = 12) -0.2 [-2.6, 5.6] P = 0.925 |
|
| Castro et al. 2013 [31] | USA, NC, Carrboro | Pre-/post (no CON) |
Characteristics 60 families participated n = 120 children Boys: 49% Ethnicity: 59% Latino/a Age (Mean (± SD): 6.0 (± 3.4)y Inclusion criteria Families living in the community (Carrboro); had ≤ 1 child 6 + y |
1. To help children achieve or maintain a healthy BMI 2. to increase children’s access to fruit and vegetables, particularly at home 3. To increase the daily number of servings of F&V children consumed |
Families recruited through outreach activities at schools and other local service providers |
Growing Healthy Kids (GHK)—3 yr program consisting of: 1) weekly gardening sessions; 2) cooking and nutrition workshops for parents and children; 3) social activities and events meetings; newsletter; etc.) |
Height and weight collected pre-and post-program (3y) Surveys administered at baseline and at end of each year. Survey was piloted with focus groups and previously been used with Latino families |
Change in BMI |
Changes in BMI 17% of obesity (n = 6) resolved 23% of overweight (n = 3) resolved 100% of healthy weight (n = 53) maintained healthy weight |
|
| De Marco et al. 2016 [32] | USA, NC, Rural, low resource county |
Pre-/post design June 2010-May 2011 (11 months) |
Characteristics Rural African American youth (n = 17) and adults (n = 23) Inclusion criteria Open to adults and youth ≥ 10 y |
To test the feasibility of a church garden program to impact health outcomes in rural African American youth and adults |
The assistant pastor recruited church members and community members known to him |
Workshops 2 h/wk; hands-on gardening and nutrition education |
BP, height, weight, BMI Assessed using paired t-tests |
Weight, BMI, blood pressure |
Youth (n = 14) Weight: 148.5 lb to 151.9 lb BMI percentile: 71.3 to 71.7 Systolic BP: 120.5 to 113.5 Diastolic BP: 74.6 to 73.3 Adults (n = 20) Weight: 204.7 lb to 202.2 lb BMI: 32.5 to 31.7 Systolic BP: 137.5 to 136.6 Diastolic BP: 84.3 to 83.8 |
|
| Hawkins et al. 2011 [49] | UK; Cardiff, Wales |
Cross-sectional study (1) Indoor exercise group (2) Walkers (3) Allotment gardeners (4) Home gardeners |
Characteristics (1) n = 23 Age (y): 72.9 ± 6.9 Male: 3 (13%) (2) n = 25 Age (y): 62.4 ± 6.8 Male: 8 (32%) (3) n = 25 Age (y): 65.7 ± 9.1 Male: 17 (68%) (4) n = 21 Age (y): 69.5 ± 7.7 Male: 2 (10%) Inclusion criteria ≥ 50 y attending various local activity groups |
Measure health status and perceived stress of allotment gardeners compared to other activity groups (indoor exercisers, walkers, home gardeners) |
Recruited via leaflets, posters and visits to groups from researcher Response rate 87.8% |
Compared leisure activity groups to members of allotment gardening group No intervention |
Self-reported health using the SF-36v2; PA (MET (min/wk) and sitting time measured using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire); BMI, BP, forced vital capacity (FVC; a measure of lung function) | Physical activity, sitting, self-reported health, BMI, pulse pressure calculated from Psystolic – Pdiastolic), lung function |
No group differences in health outcomes Self-reported physical health (median; IQR) (1) 48.3 (41.2–55.9) (2) 51.6 (43.9–54.1) (3) 53.5 (43.2–57.9) (4) 50.0 (45.3–56.2) PA (MET min/week; median (IQR)) (1) 3576 (2076–5760) (2) 3450 (2232–6985) (3) 5915 (2428–11,196) (4) 3282 (1724–5630) Sitting time (min/wk; mean ± SD) (1) 346 ± 210 (2) 356 ± 183 (3) 305 ± 139 (4) 371 ± 190 BMI (mean ± SD) (1) 26.2 ± 5.2 (2) 26.9 ± 4.3 (3) 25.5 ± 3.3 (4) 27.3 ± 2.2 Pulse pressure; mean ± SD) (1) 64.3 ± 15.4 (2) 54.6 ± 14.2 (3) 62.4 ± 16.3 (4) 63.7 ± 15.1 FVC (mean ± SD) (1) 94.8 ± 25.4 (2) 99.4 ± 34.2 (3) 104.9 ± 33.3 (4) 93.6 ± 21.9 |
|
| Heilmayr and Friedman 2020 [34] | USA, CA |
RCT with 5 INT groups: (1) Community gardening (2) moderate indoor exercise (3) Exposure to nature (4) Social club (watching films) (5) Indoor container gardening |
University students Characteristics Baseline data reported in combination (not by group allocation) Age (y): 20.6 ± 3.3 Male: 31.2% (1) n = 21 (2) n = 21 (3) n = 23 (4) n = 22 (5) n = 23 |
To compare community gardening with four theoretically driven comparison groups to understand possible causal mechanisms around how community gardens have improved outcomes | Convenience sample recruited via flyers, emails and the Psychology Subject Pool | 4 week INT; assigned an activity for 2–3 h/wk | Data were analysed by ANOVA with pre-/post-test values to assess how groups changed from baseline and a group by time interaction | Self-reported health; Sleepiness; PA Fatigue Short Form a (4-items, responses NR), Body mass index |
Self-reported health (post-test only; mean ± SD) (1) 63.2 ± 18.8 (2) 63.9 ± 17.6 (3) 61.9 ± 17.9 (4) 61.0 ± 17.1 (5) 64.0 ± 16.2 Sleepiness (post-test only; mean ± SD) (1) 9.2 ± 4.1 (2) 7.7 ± 4.9 (3) 8.8 ± 5.5 (4) 9.3 ± 3.1 (5) 9.3 ± 4.0 PA (post-test only; mean ± SD) (1) 2.8 ± 1.2 (2) 3.1 ± 1.2 (3) 3.1 ± 1.2 (4) 3.1 ± 1.2 (5) 3.4 ± 1.6 |
|
| Hopkins and Holben 2018 [35] | USA, OH, rural Appalachia (Athens) | Cross-sectional study |
Characteristics n = 50 Ethnicity: 81.6% white Female: 67.4% Education: 46.9% college educated Inclusion criteria CG plot in Athens |
To examine relationships among food security, produce intake and behaviors, health and social capital among community gardeners | All community gardeners (n = 120) in Athens invited |
No intervention Individuals with CG plots |
Survey distributed via email (response rate = 42%) Descriptive stats reported, no adjustment |
Health and PA questions |
100% ‘good’ to ‘excellent’ health at end of gardening season 66% do more PA due to CG No association of food security with PA |
|
| Litt et al. 2015 [38] | USA, CO, Denver | Cross-sectional survey |
n = 469 Characteristics Age (mean ± SD): 46.1 ± 15.9y Female: 67.4% Education: 57.4% college educated 59.3% identified as gardeners n = 92 neighborhoods 49.6% residents college educated 25% residents minority 40.8% lived in area for ≥ 5 yrs Inclusion criteria English or Spanish speaking ≥ 18 yrs |
To examine the direct and indirect pathways by which gardening influences self-rated health |
Area-based sample of general population, n = 1154 randomly drawn from 40 block groups 13 gardens identified; List-based census of community gardeners n = 300 |
No intervention Individuals participating in CGs compared with non-gardeners |
Surveys interviewer administered Path analysis controlling for age, education, years in neighborhood, % college education in neighborhood, observed incivilities |
Self-rated health |
Gardening did not predict self-rated health (β = 0.04, ns) Collective efficacy predicted higher self-rated health (β = 0.14, p < 0.05) Gardening impacted self-rated health indirectly, through social involvement, aesthetics and collective efficacy |
|
| Machida 2019 [39] | Japan | Cross-sectional survey |
Web-based survey limited to age 60–69 y, professional farmers excluded (1) Community gardeners n = 129 Male n(%): 87(67%) Age (y): 64.1 ± 2.6 (2) Home gardeners (HG) n = 371 Male n(%):280(76% Age (y): 63.9 ± 2.7 (3) Non-gardeners n = 500 Male n(%): 327 (65%) Age (y): 63.3 ± 2.5 |
To study the relationship between community or home gardening and health status or a healthy lifestyle | The survey was conducted by a marketing company with 4.2 million people registered across all 47 prefectures in Japan | No INT | Odds Ratios adjusted for sex, age, family structure and employment status (not described) |
BMI, exercise (> 30 min/d, at least 2 d/wk for over a year) and physically active (> 1 h/day), sitting time (categorized as < 3 h, 3–6 h and ≥ 6 h); walking speed faster than same generation and gender (yes/no) Sleep (enough + moderate versus not enough + shortage) |
BMI (ref 20–24.9) (1) CG: Underweight (< 20): 0.97 (0.65, 1.46) Overweight or obese (≥ 25): 1.10 (0.78, 1.55) (2) HG: Underweight (< 20): 0.83 (0.46, 1.48) Overweight or obese (≥ 25): 0.69 (0.40, 1.19) Exercise (1) CG: 1.57 (1.19, 2.07) (2) HG: 1.79 (1.20, 2.67) PA (1) CG: 1.94 (1.45, 2.59) (2) HG: 2.32 (1.50, 3.59) Sitting time (ref ≥ 6 h/d) (1) CG 3–6 h/d: 1.59 (1.14, 2.22) < 3 h/d: 1.80 (1.21, 2.69) (2) HG: 3–6 h/d: 1.47 (0.91, 2.39) < 3 h/d: 1.74 (0.99, 3.05 Walking speed (faster than same generation and gender) (1) CG: 1.22 (0.92, 1.63) (2) HG: 1.48 (0.96, 2.26) Sleep (1) CG:0.99 (0.67, 1.46) (2) HG: 1.11 (0.63, 1.96) |
|
| Mangadu et al. 2017 [40] | USA, NM, US-Mexico border areas | Cross-sectional study |
Two CGs accessible by public. (CG1, CG2) CG1 (n = 16) CG2 (n = 9) Characteristics % Male NR Age NR CG@ is a local government project comprising a neighborhood CG and a garden on a juvenile probation campus. Where possible, data from the probation campus are not extracted |
To identify the best practices in implementing and increasing the potential or sustainability of community gardens | NR | NR | Descriptive statistics only. Not adjusted for anything | PA (1-item), ‘Do you think you are more physically active |
Are you more physically active as a result of being engaged in CGs: CG1: Yes, n = NR (75%) CG2: yes, n = NR (100%) |
|
| Soga et al. 2017 [50] | Japan, Tokyo, Nerima district in central Tokyo | Cross-sectional survey |
Gardeners (n = 165) vs non-gardeners (n = 167) Characteristics Gardeners: Male: 68.1% Age (mean ± SD): 62 ± 17y Non-gardeners: Male: 42% Age (mean ± SD): 61 ± 16y |
To quantify effects of allotment gardening on physical, psychological and social health |
Gardeners located by face-to-face recruitment at allotment gardens (90% response rate) Non-gardeners recruited via a letter sent to 1000 Nerima households (20% response rate) |
NR | Adjusted for sex, age, household income, employment, smoking, drinking, vegetable intake and physical activity (days per week of > 30 min/day of moderate activity) | BMI (self-reported height, weight), Physical activity (days per week) |
Compared with non-gardeners: Gardeners mean BMI (± SE) was 0.56 ± 0.39 higher Days of physical activity did not differ between gardeners (3.9 ± 2.3) and non-gardeners (3.9 ± 3.3) |
|
| Tharrey et al. 2020 [46] | France, Montpellier |
Longitudinal cohort study Data collected at baseline and 1 year later |
Characteristics (1) Community gardeners (n = 66) Male n(%): 16(24.2) Age (y): 44.0 ± 14.0 (2) Non-gardeners (n = 66) Male n(%): 16(24.2) Age (y): 44.9 ± 13.7 Inclusion criteria Starting gardening in a community garden; residents of Montpelier; ability to read French |
To assess the impact or urban community garden participation the adoption of sustainable lifestyles |
Gardeners recruited when new to the gardening community Non-gardeners recruited via volunteers for a population-based survey on food supply behaviors |
Community gardens plots used collectively or individually |
Analyzed with mixed-effects models with group by time interaction Adjustments for education, BMI, meals consumed outside the home, social desirability where appropriate |
PA energy expenditure (PAEE), time spend inactive (< 1.5 METs) and moderate-to-vigorous activity (> 3 METs) using accelerometry worn for 9 consecutive days BMI from self-reported height and weight |
PAEE at 1 year (mean ± SD) (1) 40.3 ± 12.3 (2) 39.9 ± 13.5 Inactivity at 1 year (h/day; mean ± SD) (1) 9.9 ± 1.5 (2) 9.8 ± 1.4 Moderate-to-vigorous activity at 1 year (h/d; mean ± SD) (1) 1.6 ± 0.7 (2) 1.7 ± 0.8 BMI at 1 year (mean ± SD) (1) 22.8 ± 3.1 (2) 23.9 ± 4.1 |
|
| van den Berg et al. 2010 [51] | The Netherlands, “large cities” | Cross-sectional survey |
Gardeners (n = 121) from 12 allotment gardens Non-gardener (n = 63) Characteristics Gardeners: Male: 53% Age (mean ± SD): 62 ± 12 y Non-gardeners: Male: 41% Age (mean ± SD): 56 ± 14 y |
To directly compare the health, wellbeing and physical activity of allotment gardeners to that of controls without an allotment garden |
Gardeners sent invitations to their home addresses Non-gardeners were responders living next to the home address of allotment gardeners |
Ranged from residential parks, day-recreational parks and food production parks | Adjusted for age, sex, education, income, access to a garden at home, physical activity in winter and stressful life events, and included an age by gardening interaction term. Results separated by age |
Physical activity as days/ week engaging in at least half an hour of intensive activities Count of chronic illnesses (e.g. cardiovas-cular, musculo-skeletal conditions) Count of GP consultations in past 2 months |
Physical activity (days per week in summer): Mean ± SD (unadjusted) < 62 yrs Gardeners 5.6 ± 0.2 Non-gardeners 5.1 ± 0.2 ≥ 62 yrs Gardeners 5.8 ± 0.2 Non-gardeners 5.0 ± 0.2 meanadjusted ± SE Chronic illness < 62 yrs Gardeners 0.6 ± 0.1 Non-gardeners 0.5 ± 0.1 ≥ 62 yrs Gardeners 0.5 ± 0.1 Non-gardeners 0.8 ± 0.2 GP consultations < 62 yrs Gardeners 0.7 ± 0.2 Non-gardeners 0.9 ± 0.2 ≥ 62 yrs Gardeners 0.5 ± 0.1 Non-gardeners 1.1 ± 0.2 |
|
| Weltin 2013 [52] and Weltin and Lavin 2012 [48] | USA, IA, Dubuque | Pre-/post- |
Immigrants from the Marshall Is living in Dubuque Iowa, who attended a local clinic for patients with diabetes (n = 17). Follow up data on n = 13 (n = 5 Gardeners n = 8 non-gardeners) Characteristics Male: 53% Age 33-81y (mean 51y) |
To monitor HbA1c levels in Marshallese population who participated in a CG | From clinic | Clinic staff and their families donated supplies and taught how to prepare soil, plant, weed and harvest produce at a local church garden. Unclear if the garden was freely available for all to use | Comparison of pre-gardeners and non-gardeners using independent t tests. No adjustments | BMI, blood pressure and HbA1c levels 6 months after the interventions |
All mean ± SD BMI Gardeners 30.2 ± 3.1 kg/m2 Non-gardeners 34.1 ± 1.4 kg/m2 Blood pressure NR separately for gardeners vs Non-gardeners HbA1c Gardeners 8.2 ± 1.6 Non-gardeners 9.3 ± 1.5 |
|
| Zick et al. 2013 [53] | USA, UT, Salt Lake City | Cross-sectional study of linked administrative data | n = 198 community gardeners | To examine the association of participation in community gardening with healthy body weight |
Wasatch CGs (WCG, non profit organization); Utah Population Database (UPDB) WCG staff provided details of 423 adults who gardened in 1 of WCG’s CG plots for ≥ 1 year; and not growing produce for sale 375 data linkage to UPDB, linkage rate of 88.7% |
INT: community gardeners vs. 3 CON groups: (1) unrelated individuals who lived in gardeners’ neighborhoods, (2) siblings of community gardeners, and (3) spouses of the community gardeners |
Multivariable analyses, controlling for year of BMI, age, gender, education, race | Self-reported height and weight (BMI) |
All mean ± SD BMI Women CG vs women neighbors CG 23.9 ± 5.3 Neighbors 25.5 ± 5.7 BMI Women CG vs women siblings BMI: 23.9 ± 5.2 Siblings: 25.2 ± 5.6 Women CG vs women spouses CG: 24.3 ± 5.0 Spouses: 26.6 ± 12.8 Men CG vs neighbors CG: 24.7 ± 4.3 Neighbors 27.2 ± 4.8 Men CG vs Men siblings CG: 25.10 ± 4.63 Siblings: 25.63 ± 4.63 Men CG vs Men spouses CG: 25.34 ± 3.07 Spouses: 27.89 ± 5.83 |
|
Abbreviations: BMI Body mass index, CG Community garden, COM Comparison group, CON Control group, F&V Fruit and vegetable, INT Intervention group, NR Not reported, OR Odds ratio, PA Physical activity, RCT Randomized controlled trial, SD Standard deviation, SE Standard error, SEP Socioeconomic position