Rachel Bragg

Improving health and well-being independently of GDP: dividends of greener and prosocial economies.

Increases in gross domestic product (GDP) beyond a threshold of basic needs do not lead to further increases in well-being. An explanation is that material consumption (MC) also results in negative health externalities. We assess how these externalities influence six factors critical for well-being: (i) healthy food; (ii) active body; (iii) healthy mind; (iv) community links; (v) contact with nature; and (vi) attachment to possessions. If environmentally sustainable consumption (ESC) were increasingly substituted for MC, thus improving well-being and stocks of natural and social capital, and sustainable behaviours involving non-material consumption (SBs-NMC) became more prevalent, then well-being would increase regardless of levels of GDP. In the UK, the individualised annual health costs of negative consumption externalities (NCEs) currently amount to £62 billion for the National Health Service, and £184 billion for the economy (for mental ill-health, dementia, obesity, physical inactivity, diabetes, loneliness and cardiovascular disease). A dividend is available if substitution by ESC and SBs-NMC could limit the prevalence of these conditions.

The Wilderness Expedition An Effective Life Course Intervention to Improve Young People’s Well-Being and Connectedness to Nature

It is well understood that wilderness expeditions improve well-being; however, there is little supporting quantitative data. The aim of this study was to measure the impact of wilderness expeditions on self-esteem (SE) and connectedness to nature (CN) and assess whether benefits varied according to participant and expedition characteristics. SE and CN were assessed pre– and post–wilderness expeditions in 130 adolescents using Rosenberg’s SE scale and the state CN scale. Two-way ANOVA revealed significant increases in SE and CN (p < .001) as a result of single expeditions. There was also an interaction effect of expedition and gender on SE (p < .05). Males had a higher SE at the start but female SE increased most. Linear regression revealed that living environment, gender, and the length and location of the expedition did not contribute to changes in SE and CN. Regular contact with natural environments will improve adolescent well-being, with the largest improvements in females.

Understanding the impacts of care farms on health and well-being of disadvantaged populations: a protocol of the Evaluating Community Orders (ECO) pilot study

Introduction Care farms, where all or part of the farm is used for therapeutic purposes, show much potential for improving the health and well-being of a range of disadvantaged groups. Studies to date have been qualitative or observational, with limited empirical evidence of the effectiveness of care farms in improving health and well-being. Understanding the underlying mechanisms that lead to improvements for different disadvantaged groups is a further gap in the evidence. Participants in this study are offenders serving community orders. Their low socioeconomic status and poor health outcomes relative to the general population exemplifies disadvantage. Methods and analysis This paper describes the protocol of a study to understand the impacts of care farms and to pilot the design and tools for a study to assess cost-effectiveness of care farms in improving the quality of life of offenders. As a pilot study, no power calculation has been conducted. However, 150 offenders serving community sentences on care farms and 150 on other probation locations (eg, litter picking, painting) will be recruited over a 1-year period. Changes in quality of life, measured by Clinical Outcome in Routine Evaluation–Outcome Measure, health and reconvictions of offenders at care farms compared to other probation locations will be analysed to inform the sample size calculation for the follow on study. The feasibility of recruitment, retention, collecting cost data and modelling cost-effectiveness will also be assessed. The study will use qualitative methods to explore the experiences of offenders attending care farms and perceptions of probation and care farm staff on the processes and impacts of the intervention. Ethics and dissemination Findings will be published and inform development of a natural experiment and will be disseminated to probation services, care farms and academics. University of Leeds Ethical Review Board approved: SoMREC/13/014. National Offender Management Service (NOMS) approved: 2013-257.

Assessing the impact of care farms on quality of life and offending: a pilot study among probation service users in England

Objectives To assess the feasibility of conducting a cost-effectiveness study of using care farms (CFs) to improve quality of life and reduce reoffending among offenders undertaking community orders (COs). To pilot questionnaires to assess quality of life, connection to nature, lifestyle behaviours, health and social-care use. To assess recruitment and retention at 6 months and feasibility of data linkage to Police National Computer (PNC) reconvictions data and data held by probation services. Design Pilot study using questionnaires to assess quality of life, individually linked to police and probation data. Setting The pilot study was conducted in three probation service regions in England. Each site included a CF and at least one comparator CO project. CFs are working farms used with a range of clients, including offenders, for therapeutic purposes. The three CFs included one aquaponics and horticulture social enterprise, a religious charity focusing on horticulture and a family-run cattle farm. Comparator projects included sorting secondhand clothes and activities to address alcohol misuse and anger management. Participants We recruited 134 adults (over 18) serving COs in England, 29% female. Results 52% of participants completed follow-up questionnaires. Privatisation of UK probation trusts in 2014 negatively impacted on recruitment and retention. Linkage to PNC data was a more successful means of follow-up, with 90% consenting to access their probation and PNC data. Collection of health and social-care costs and quality-adjusted life year derivation were feasible. Propensity score adjustment provided a viable comparison method despite differences between comparators. We found worse health and higher reoffending risk among CF participants due to allocation of challenging offenders to CFs, making risk of reoffending a confounder. Conclusions Recruitment would be feasible in a more stable probation environment. Follow-up was challenging; however, assessing reconvictions from PNC data is feasible and a potential primary outcome for future studies.

Green fingers and clear minds: prescribing 'care farming' for mental illness.

GPs face considerable challenges in accessing effective treatment options for patients with depression and anxiety.1,2 Antidepressant use has been rising steadily since the early 1990s and GPs have been accused of over-prescribing, with approximately 70% of depressed patients in primary care being prescribed antidepressants.3 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance recommends reductions in prescription of antidepressants and increased access to talking therapies.4 However, the flagship government programme Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) currently has long waiting lists and inconsistencies across clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). Furthermore, even when patients do receive their therapy, approximately 50% of anxious and depressed patients do not recover.5 GPs clearly need an increased array of timely options for these patients. There are several options being tried by CCGs to provide alternatives to medication and to reduce long waiting lists for psychological therapies. Although using nature as an aid to mental health recovery is not new, the concept has evolved from what was once an adjunct to institutional psychiatric care to community-based multifunctional ‘green care’ services. Here, working in nature is the primary intervention and is supported by skilled horticulturists and farmers. These interventions are gaining in popularity and have received high-profile support.6 Care farming (or ‘social farming’) is a type of green care intervention and has been defined as the use of commercial farming and agricultural landscapes to promote mental and physical health through normal farming activity. …