Urban greenspace and anxiety symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic: A 20-month follow up of 19,848 participants in England

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2022.04.27.22274371: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: The study was approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee [12467/005] and all participants gave informed consent.
    Consent: The study was approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee [12467/005] and all participants gave informed consent.
    Sex as a biological variableThese included gender (women vs men), ethnicity (white vs ethnic minorities), age groups (age 18-29, 30-45, 46-59, 60+), education (up to GCSE levels, A-levels or equivalent, university degree or above), annual income (<£16,000, ≤£16,000-29,999, ≤£30,000-59,999, ≤£60,000-89,999, ≥£90,000), employment status (employed vs other), self-reported diagnosis of any long-term physical health condition (e.g., asthma or diabetes) or any disability (yes vs no), and self-reported diagnosis of any long-term mental health condition (e.g., depression, anxiety) (yes vs no).
    RandomizationThe study did not use a random sample design and therefore the original sample is not representative of the UK population.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Despite these strengths, the limitations of our study raise important points for further research. First, our data were from a non-probability sample. Despite the effort to make our sample representative to the population in England by weighting, there is still the possibility of potential biases due to omitting other demographic factors that could be associated with survey participation in the weighting process. Second, there is a lack of pre-pandemic data. It therefore remains unclear how the mental health benefits of greenspace in the context of COVID-19 pandemic compared to a normal scenario. Future research is encouraged to examine the mental health benefits of greenspace using data collected both prior to and during the pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound effect on mental health and led to a sharp increase in demand for mental health assistance and interventions, presenting an unprecedented challenge to the National Health Service (NHS) in England. Greenspace is increasingly being recognised as an important asset for supporting mental health by policy makers and practitioners. In 2020, England launched a £5.77 million project on green social prescribing to prevent and tackle mental ill health. The recent Levelling Up White Paper included making greenspace accessible to all as one of its missions, by enhancing and maintaining green belts, parks, woodlands, particularly in communities with the lowest greenspace access.53 Our study showed that anxiety levels...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.


    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.