Growing Healthy Hearts: Gardening Program Feasibility in a Hospital-Based Community Garden

Feasibility of a Hospital-Based Kitchen Garden

AIM

To explore the chef's experience with a newly implemented indoor hospital-based kitchen garden designed to supplement herbs ordered for patient meals and improve staff engagement.

BACKGROUND

Hospital-based therapeutic and kitchen gardens have emerged as effective health-promoting tools in hospital healthcare environments. They promote emotional, mental, and physical well-being for patients, visitors, and staff. However, formal evaluations are limited, and studies focusing on indoor hospital kitchen gardens are noticeably absent in the literature.

METHODS

Qualitative evaluation of a hospital-based kitchen garden. Open-ended interviews were conducted approximately 6 months after garden implementation and explored key informants (n = 6) overall experience, engagement with the garden, perceived benefits, and opportunities for improvement. Interview data was analyzed using a thematic approach.

RESULTS

The implementation of the kitchen gardens was met with overall acceptance among staff. However, the project's feasibility faced challenges related to local food service leadership, communication, and certain aspects of the garden setup. Despite these obstacles, the gardens contributed positively to the quality of meals by including fresh herbs and fostering greater staff engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

The chefs viewed the concept of the hospital-based kitchen garden favorably, noting that it closely aligned with their mission of providing nutritious meals to patients. However, consideration of the broader issues facing hospital food services may be required to seamlessly integrate this task into the kitchen staff's daily routine. Further research is warranted to investigate the effective implementation and feasibility of indoor kitchen gardens in hospitals and their impact on patient menus, food service staff, and the workforce.

Implementation and Impact of Health Care Gardens: A Systematic Scoping Review

Background: In community and school settings, gardens and garden interventions have been shown to confer several psychosocial, physiological, and nutritional benefits. However, little is known about the implementation and impact of health care gardens on patients, visitors, and staff health and well-being. The primary aim of this review is to identify and describe the types of gardens and common design elements implemented in health care settings and the impact these gardens have on the health and well-being of patients, visitors, and staff. A secondary aim is to assess the quality of available evidence. Methods: PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were systematically searched on October 28, 2022. Primary qualitative and quantitative studies (excluding case reports and studies) were eligible for inclusion if they described the types of gardens and common design elements implemented in health care settings (hospitals, aged care, rehabilitation facilities, and medical centers) and/or assessed the impact of garden interventions on the health and well-being of patients, visitors, and staff. Review, selection, and data extraction were conducted by two independent researchers, with findings synthesized and presented in narrative form. Articles were critically appraised using the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT). Results: Eighteen articles were included. Eight studies provided detailed descriptions of the types of gardens implemented in health care settings (healing [n = 3], therapeutic [n = 2], sensory [n = 2], children's fairy gardens [n = 1], and enriched [n = 1] gardens). Studies examining the psychosocial impacts of gardens were most frequently reported (n = 16), followed by physical (n = 4) and nutritional (n = 2). A wide range of positive outcomes, predominantly relating to patients (n = 12), were reported, including improvements in stress, quality of life (QOL), cognitive function, physical activity, and fruit and vegetable intake. The evidence was heterogeneous and low-medium quality. Conclusions: The findings suggest that implementing gardens and garden interventions in health care settings may positively impact the health and well-being of patients, visitors, and staff. Most studies related to the impact of gardens on patients' mental health and QOL, indicating the need for further research to explore physical and nutritional outcomes, as well as health outcomes of staff and visitors. Findings also suggest the need for high-quality study designs (e.g., cluster control trials) and standardized measurement tools.

Acceptability and Feasibility of a Hospital-Based Herb and Vegetable Garden for Health Care Workers

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the acceptability and feasibility and explore the potential health impacts of a hospital-based herb and vegetable garden.

METHODS

Mixed-method program evaluation assessed dietetic and food service staff health, well-being, and garden engagement. Surveys were administered at baseline and follow-up (6 months). Key informant interviews (n = 6) were conducted at 6 months to evaluate program feasibility.

RESULTS

There was good acceptance and engagement with the garden, with 18 participants volunteering to maintain the garden. Key informant interviews identified workforce, leadership, and garden design engagement factors. Participants also noted several psychosocial benefits.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

A hospital-based garden for staff is feasible if programmatic improvements are addressed. More robust evaluations considering challenges with measuring key outcomes with survey methodology and extended periods are warranted.

Growing Healthy Hearts: a single-arm feasibility study of a digitally delivered gardening, cooking, and nutrition intervention for adults with risk factors for cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

Food gardening may positively influence cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk-related behaviors. However, the vast majority of existing gardening interventions have used an in-person delivery model which has limitations for scalability. It is not known whether a digitally delivered gardening intervention would be feasible or acceptable to participants. The purpose of this pilot study was to assess the feasibility of a digitally delivered gardening intervention in three domains: participant acceptability, demand, and practicality.

METHODS

A single-arm, pre-post-study design was used. Participants (n = 30) were aged 20 + with no plans to garden in the coming season and had at least 1 CVD risk factor. The intervention included ten 1-h video-conferencing sessions, written materials, and access to a study website. Content focused on gardening skills, cooking skills, and the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet. Feasibility outcomes included acceptability (post-program ratings), demand (session attendance rate), and practicality (ability to start a garden and grow F&V). The study was considered feasible if the following criteria were met: ≥ 70% rated the intervention as good or excellent, overall session attendance rate was ≥ 70%, and > 70% were able to start a garden and grow F&V. We also assessed pre-post-program changes in behavioral mediators (gardening confidence, gardening enjoyment, cooking confidence, and nutrition knowledge). Descriptive statistics were calculated. Pre-post differences were evaluated with means and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Effect sizes were calculated (Cohen's d).

RESULTS

All feasibility criteria were met. A total of 93.3% of participants rated the intervention as good or excellent, 96% started a garden and grew F&V, and the overall session attendance rate was 81%. The largest mean pre-post changes were in gardening confidence (pre 7.1 [95% CI: 6.4, 7.9], post 9.0 [95% CI: 8.6, 9.5], Cohen's d = 1.15), gardening enjoyment (pre: 6.3 [95% CI: 5.9, 6.7], post: 7.5 [95% CI: 7.1, 7.9], Cohen's d = 1.69), and cooking self-efficacy (pre: 4.7 [95% CI: 4.3, 5.1], post: 7.7 [95% CI: 7.3, 8.0], Cohen's d = 3.0).

CONCLUSION

A digitally delivered gardening intervention was feasible, acceptable to participants, and they had meaningful changes in behavioral mediators. The next step is to evaluate the impact of the intervention in a future randomized controlled trial.

Inspired to Garden: A Qualitative Study of Participants' Experiences in an Academic Medical Center Garden

Introduction Gardening is a healthy activity that promotes nutrition and satisfaction, with positive impacts on patients with chronic diseases, including patients with obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Hospital-based gardening programs may provide opportunities to introduce patients to gardening. However, few studies have included participant experience as a metric of evaluation. The objective of this study was to explore participant experience in a hospital-based gardening intervention designed for individuals with metabolic syndrome. Methods This study was a qualitative evaluation of free text responses from four questions included in post-participation questionnaires from 59 community-dwelling adults who participated in a hospital-based garden program located at the University of Vermont Medical Center in 2020 and 2021. Eligible participants included a convenience sample of novice gardeners with self-reported hypertension, diabetes, pre-diabetes, or overweight/obesity. We used an interpretative phenomenological approach to analyze the questionnaire data. The phenomenological cycle for each of the questions included: 1) reading and re-reading participant responses, 2) exploratory noting, 3) constructing experimental statements, 4) searching for connections across statements, and 5) naming the themes. This process also involved working with individual question-level themes to develop group themes across questions. Results This dataset was one of positivity about gardening, new information gleaned, and the quality of instruction. Several themes and codes emerged: program implementation (new knowledge, new skills, new connections, instructor ability, climate), self-efficacy (confidence, vicarious experience, mastery experience, verbal persuasion), and future change (behavior change, future issues/problem-solving, passing it on). Conclusion This study supports analyzing participant experience as part of hospital-based gardening interventions. We found positivity around program implementation, increased self-efficacy, and intentions to change behavior in ways that support healthy lifestyles.

Participant Preferences for the Development of a Digitally Delivered Gardening Intervention to Improve Diet, Physical Activity, and Cardiovascular Health: Cross-sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Low dietary intake of fruits and vegetables and physical inactivity are 2 modifiable risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Fruit and vegetable gardening can provide access to fresh produce, and many gardening activities are considered moderate physical activity. This makes gardening interventions a potential strategy for cardiovascular disease risk reduction. Previously developed gardening interventions have relied on in-person delivery models, which limit scalability and reach.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to ascertain participant insight on intervention components and topics of interest to inform a digitally delivered, gardening-focused, multiple health behavior change intervention.

METHODS

A web-based survey was delivered via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), including quantitative and open-ended questions. Eligible participants were aged ≥20 years, could read and write in English, were US residents, and had at least a 98% MTurk task approval rating. A multilevel screening process was used to identify and exclude respondents with response inattention, poor language fluency, or suspected automated web robots (bots). Participants were asked about their interest in gardening programming, their preferences for intervention delivery modalities (1-hour expert lectures, a series of brief <5-minute videos, or in-person meetings), and what information is needed to teach new gardeners. Comparisons were made between never gardeners (NG) and ever gardeners (EG) in order to examine differences in perceptions based on prior experience. Quantitative data were summarized, and differences between groups were tested using chi-square tests. Qualitative data were coded and organized into intervention functions based on the Behavior Change Wheel.

RESULTS

A total of 465 participants were included (n=212, 45.6% NG and n=253, 54.4% EG). There was a high level of program interest overall (n=355, 76.3%), though interest was higher in EG (142/212, 67% NG; 213/253, 84.2% EG; P<.001). The majority of participants (n=282, 60.7%) preferred a series of brief <5-minute videos (136/212, 64.2% NG; 146/253, 57.7% EG; P=.16) over 1-hour lectures (29/212, 13.7% NG; 50/253, 19.8% EG; P=.08) or in-person delivery modes (47/212, 22.2% NG; 57/253, 22.5% EG; P=.93). Intervention functions identified were education and training (performing fundamental gardening and cooking activities), environmental restructuring (eg, social support), enablement (provision of tools or seeds), persuasion (offering encouragement and highlighting the benefits of gardening), and modeling (using content experts and participant testimonials). Content areas identified included the full lifecycle of gardening activities, from the fundamentals of preparing a garden site, planting and maintenance to harvesting and cooking.

CONCLUSIONS

In a sample of potential web-based learners, participants were interested in a digitally delivered gardening program. They preferred brief videos for content delivery and suggested content topics that encompassed how to garden from planting to harvesting and cooking. The next step in this line of work is to identify target behavior change techniques and pilot test the intervention to assess participant acceptability and preliminary efficacy.