The use of non-medical referral, community referral or social prescribing interventions has been proposed as a cost-effective alternative to help those with long-term conditions manage their illness and improve health and well-being. However, the evidence base for social prescribing currently lags considerably behind practice. In this paper, we explore what is known about whether different methods of social prescribing referral and supported uptake do (or do not) work. Supported by an Expert Advisory Group, we conducted a realist review in two phases. The first identified evidence specifically relating to social prescribing in order to develop programme theories in the form of ‘if-then’ statements, articulating how social prescribing models are expected to work. In the second phase, we aimed to clarify these processes and include broader evidence to better explain the proposed mechanisms. The first phase resulted in 109 studies contributing to the synthesis, and the second phase 34. We generated 40 statements relating to organising principles of how the referral takes place (Enrolment), is accepted (Engagement), and completing an activity (Adherence). Six of these statements were prioritised using web-based nominal group technique by our Expert Group. Studies indicate that patients are more likely to enrol if they believe the social prescription will be of benefit, the referral is presented in an acceptable way that matches their needs and expectations, and concerns elicited and addressed appropriately by the referrer. Patients are more likely to engage if the activity is both accessible and transit to the first session supported. Adherence to activity programmes can be impacted through having an activity leader who is skilled and knowledgeable or through changes in the patient's conditions or symptoms. However, the evidence base is not sufficiently developed methodologically for us to make any general inferences about effectiveness of particular models or approaches.

There is growing research and policy interest in the potential for using the natural environment to enhance human health and well-being. This resource may be underused as a health promotion tool to address the increasing burden of common health problems such as increased chronic diseases and mental health concerns. Outdoor environmental enhancement and conservation activities (EECA) (for instance unpaid litter picking, tree planting or path maintenance) offer opportunities for physical activity alongside greater connectedness with local environments, enhanced social connections within communities and improved self-esteem through activities that improve the locality which may, in turn, further improve well-being. Objectives: to assess the health and well-being impacts on adults following participation in environmental enhancement and conservation activities. Search methods: We contacted or searched the websites of more than 250 EECA organisations to identify grey literature. Resource limitations meant the majority of the websites were from UK, USA, Canada and Australia. We searched the following databases (initially in October 2012, updated October 2014, except CAB Direct, OpenGrey, SPORTDiscus, and TRIP Database), using a search strategy developed with our project advisory groups (predominantly leaders of EECA-type activities and methodological experts): ASSIA; BIOSIS; British Education Index; British Nursing Index; CAB Abstracts; Campbell Collaboration; Cochrane Public Health Specialized Register; DOPHER; EMBASE; ERIC; Global Health; GreenFILE; HMIC; MEDLINE-in-Process; MEDLINE; OpenGrey; PsychINFO; Social Policy and Practice; SPORTDiscus; TRoPHI; Social Services Abstracts; Sociological Abstracts; the Cochrane Library; TRIP database; and Web of Science. Citation and related article chasing was used. Searches were limited to studies in English published after 1990. Selection criteria: Two review authors independently screened studies. Included studies examined the impact of EECA on adult health and well-being. Eligible interventions needed to include each of the following: intended to improve the outdoor natural or built environment at either a local or wider level; took place in urban or rural locations in any country; involved active participation; and were NOT experienced through paid employment. We included quantitative and qualitative research. Includable quantitative study designs were: randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs, quasi-RCTs, cluster quasi-RCTs, controlled before-and-after studies, interrupted-time-series, cohort studies (prospective or retrospective), case-control studies and uncontrolled before-and-after studies (uBA). We included qualitative research if it used recognised qualitative methods of data collection and analysis. Data collection and analysis: One reviewer extracted data, and another reviewer checked the data. Two review authors independently appraised study quality using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool (for quantitative studies) or Wallace criteria (for qualitative studies). Heterogeneity of outcome measures and poor reporting of intervention specifics prevented meta-analysis so we synthesised the results narratively. We synthesised qualitative research findings using thematic analysis. Main results: Database searches identified 21,420 records, with 21,304 excluded at title/abstract. Grey literature searches identified 211 records. We screened 327 full-text articles from which we included 21 studies (reported in 28 publications): two case-studies (which were not included in the synthesis due to inadequate robustness), one case-control, one retrospective cohort, five uBA, three mixed-method (uBA, qualitative), and nine qualitative studies. The 19 studies included in the synthesis detailed the impacts to a total of 3,603 participants: 647 from quantitative intervention studies and 2630 from a retrospective cohort study; and 326 from qualitative studies (one not reporting sample size). Included studies shared the key elements of EECA defined above, but the range of activities varied considerably. Quantitative evaluation methods were heterogeneous. The designs or reporting of quantitative studies, or both, were rated as 'weak' quality with high risk of bias due to one or more of the following: inadequate study design, intervention detail, participant selection, outcome reporting and blinding. Participants' characteristics were poorly reported; eight studies did not report gender or age and none reported socio-economic status. Three quantitative studies reported that participants were referred through health or social services, or due to mental ill health (five quantitative studies), however participants' engagement routes were often not clear. Whilst the majority of quantitative studies (n = 8) reported no effect on one or more outcomes, positive effects were reported in six quantitative studies relating to short-term physiological, mental/emotional health, and quality-of-life outcomes. Negative effects were reported in two quantitative studies; one study reported higher levels of anxiety amongst participants, another reported increased mental health stress. The design or reporting, or both, of the qualitative studies was rated as good in three studies or poor in nine; mainly due to missing detail about participants, methods and interventions. Included qualitative evidence provided rich data about the experience of participation. Thematic analysis identified eight themes supported by at least one good quality study, regarding participants' positive experiences and related to personal/social identity, physical activity, developing knowledge, spirituality, benefits of place, personal achievement, psychological benefits and social contact. There was one report of negative experiences. Authors' conclusions: There is little quantitative evidence of positive or negative health and well-being benefits from participating in EECA. However, the qualitative research showed high levels of perceived benefit among participants. Quantitative evidence resulted from study designs with high risk of bias, qualitative evidence lacked reporting detail. The majority of included studies were programme evaluations, conducted internally or funded by the provider. The conceptual framework illustrates the range of interlinked mechanisms through which people believe they potentially achieve health and well-being benefits, such as opportunities for social contact. It also considers potential moderators and mediators of effect. One main finding of the review is the inherent difficulty associated with generating robust evidence of effectiveness for complex interventions. We developed the conceptual framework to illustrate how people believed they benefited. Investigating such mechanisms in a subsequent theory-led review might be one way of examining evidence of effect for these activities. The conceptual framework needs further refinement through linked reviews and more reliable evidence. Future research should use more robust study designs and report key intervention and participant detail.

BACKGROUND: Many studies suggest that exposure to natural environments ('greenspace') enhances human health and wellbeing. Benefits potentially arise via several mechanisms including stress reduction, opportunity and motivation for physical activity, and reduced air pollution exposure. However, the evidence is mixed and sometimes inconclusive. One explanation may be that "greenspace" is typically treated as a homogenous environment type. However, recent research has revealed that different types and qualities of natural environments may influence health and wellbeing to different extents. METHODS: This ecological study explores this issue further using data on land cover type, bird species richness, water quality and protected or designated status to create small-area environmental indicators across Great Britain. Associations between these indicators and age/sex standardised prevalence of both good and bad health from the 2011 Census were assessed using linear regression models. Models were adjusted for indicators of socio-economic deprivation and rurality, and also investigated effect modification by these contextual characteristics. RESULTS: Positive associations were observed between good health prevalence and the density of the greenspace types, "broadleaf woodland", "arable and horticulture", "improved grassland", "saltwater" and "coastal", after adjusting for potential confounders. Inverse associations with bad health prevalence were observed for the same greenspace types, with the exception of "saltwater". Land cover diversity and density of protected/designated areas were also associated with good and bad health in the predicted manner. Bird species richness (an indicator of local biodiversity) was only associated with good health prevalence. Surface water quality, an indicator of general local environmental condition, was associated with good and bad health prevalence contrary to the manner expected, with poorer water quality associated with better population health. Effect modification by income deprivation and urban/rural status was observed for several of the indicators. CONCLUSIONS: the findings indicate that the type, quality and context of 'greenspace' should be considered in the assessment of relationships between greenspace and human health and wellbeing. Opportunities exist to further integrate approaches from ecosystem services and public health perspectives to maximise opportunities to inform policies for health and environmental improvement and protection.

BACKGROUND: Action taken to enhance or conserve outdoor environments may benefit health and wellbeing through the process of participation but also through improving the environment. There is interest, amongst both health and environmental organisations, in using such activities as health promotion interventions. The objective of this systematic review was to investigate the health and wellbeing impacts of participation in environmental enhancement and conservation activities and to understand how these activities may be beneficial, to whom and in what circumstances or contexts. METHODS: a theory-led mixed-method systematic review was used to assess evidence of effect and to identify pathways to change (protocol: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ 10.1002/14651858.CD010351/full ). Due to the multi-disciplinary, dispersed and disparate body of evidence an extensive multi-stage search strategy was devised and undertaken. Twenty-seven databases and multiple sources of grey literature were searched and over 200 relevant organisations were contacted. The heterogenous evidence was synthesised using a narrative approach and a conceptual model was developed to illustrate the mechanisms of effect. Due to the limited nature of the evidence additional higher order evidence was sought to assess the plausibility of the proposed mechanisms of effect through which health and wellbeing may accrue. RESULTS: the majority of the quantitative evidence (13 studies; all poor quality and lower-order study designs) was inconclusive, though a small number of positive and negative associations were observed. The qualitative evidence (13 studies; 10 poor quality, 3 good) indicated that the activities were perceived to have value to health and wellbeing through a number of key mechanisms; including exposure to natural environments, achievement, enjoyment and social contact. Additional high level evidence indicated that these pathways were plausible. CONCLUSIONS: Despite interest in the use of environmental enhancement activities as a health intervention there is currently little direct evidence of effect, this is primarily due to a lack of robust study designs. Further rigorous research is needed to understand the potential of the activities to benefit health and environment.

Recent ecosystem service models have placed biodiversity as a central factor in the processes that link the natural environment to health. While it is recognized that disturbed ecosystems might negatively affect human well-being, it is not clear whether biodiversity is related to or can promote "good" human health and well-being. The aim of this study was to systematically identify, summarize, and synthesize research that had examined whether biodiverse environments are health promoting. The objectives were twofold: (1) to map the interdisciplinary field of enquiry and (2) to assess whether current evidence enables us to characterize the relationship. Due to the heterogeneity of available evidence a narrative synthesis approach was used, which is textual rather than statistical. Extensive searches identified 17 papers that met the inclusion criteria: 15 quantitative and 2 qualitative. The evidence was varied in disciplinary origin, with authors approaching the question using different study designs and methods, and conceptualizations of biodiversity, health, and well-being. There is some evidence to suggest that biodiverse natural environments promote better health through exposure to pleasant environments or the encouragement of health-promoting behaviors. There was also evidence of inverse relationships, particularly at a larger scale (global analyses). However, overall the evidence is inconclusive and fails to identify a specific role for biodiversity in the promotion of better health. High-quality interdisciplinary research is needed to produce a more reliable evidence base. of particular importance is identifying the specific ecosystem services, goods, and processes through which biodiversity may generate good health and well-being.

This methods paper contributes to the recent proliferation of
methodological innovation aimed at nurturing research encounters and
exchanges that facilitate in-depth insights into people’s everyday practices
and routine place encounters. By drawing on the experiences of an
interpretive study seeking to situate people’s green space wellbeing
practices within their daily lives, we suggest value in using personalised
maps – produced using participant accelerometer (physical activity) and
Global Positioning System (GPS) data – alongside in-depth and mobile ‘goalong’
qualitative interview approaches. After introducing the study and the
methods adopted, the paper discusses three opportunities offered by this
mixed method approach to contribute a more nuanced, contextualised
understanding of participants’ green space experiences. These include: (a)
the benefits of engaging participants in the interpretation of their own
practices; (b) the value of using maps to provide a visual aid to discussion
about the importance of participants’ routine, often pre-reflective practices;
and (c) the production of a layered appreciation of participants’ local green
and blue space wellbeing experiences. Used in combination, such methods
have the potential to provide a more comprehensive picture of how current
green space experiences, be they infrequent and meaningful, or more
routine and habitual, are shaped by everyday individual agency, life
circumstances and past place experiences

Health is not equally distributed across society; there are avoidable, unfair, systematic differences in health between population groups. Some of these same groups (older people, BAME communities, those with some non-communicable diseases (NCDs)) may be particularly vulnerable to risk of exposure and severe COVID-19 outcomes due to co-morbidities, structural vulnerabilities, and public-facing or health and social care jobs among other factors. Additionally, some of the restrictions designed to reduce SARS-CoV-2 spread impact specifically on these same groups by limiting their activity and access to preventive or health promotion services. Greenspaces, accessed with social distancing, may mitigate some of the predicted negative health effects of COVID-19 restrictions. Maintaining or increasing publicly accessible urban greenspaces, particularly for marginalised groups, is reflected in the Sustainable Development Goals, and its importance amplified in the COVID-19 pandemic. Urban greenspaces should be considered a public health and social investment and a chance to rebalance our relationship with nature to protect against future pandemics. By investing in urban public greenspaces, additional benefits (job/food creation, biodiversity promotion, carbon sequestration) may coincide with health benefits. Realising these requires a shift in the balance of decision making to place weight on protecting, enhancing and providing more appropriate greenspaces designed with local communities. The current pandemic is a reminder that humanity placing too many pressures on nature has damaging consequences. COVID-19 economic recovery programs present an opportunity for sustainable transformation if they can be leveraged to simultaneously protect and restore nature and tackle climate change and health inequalities.

The use of non-medical referral, community referral or social prescribing interventions has been proposed as a cost-effective alternative to help those with long-term conditions manage their illness and improve health and well-being. However, the evidence base for social prescribing currently lags considerably behind practice. In this paper, we explore what is known about whether different methods of social prescribing referral and supported uptake do (or do not) work. Supported by an Expert Advisory Group, we conducted a realist review in two phases. The first identified evidence specifically relating to social prescribing in order to develop programme theories in the form of ‘if-then’ statements, articulating how social prescribing models are expected to work. In the second phase, we aimed to clarify these processes and include broader evidence to better explain the proposed mechanisms. The first phase resulted in 109 studies contributing to the synthesis, and the second phase 34. We generated 40 statements relating to organising principles of how the referral takes place (Enrolment), is accepted (Engagement), and completing an activity (Adherence). Six of these statements were prioritised using web-based nominal group technique by our Expert Group. Studies indicate that patients are more likely to enrol if they believe the social prescription will be of benefit, the referral is presented in an acceptable way that matches their needs and expectations, and concerns elicited and addressed appropriately by the referrer. Patients are more likely to engage if the activity is both accessible and transit to the first session supported. Adherence to activity programmes can be impacted through having an activity leader who is skilled and knowledgeable or through changes in the patient's conditions or symptoms. However, the evidence base is not sufficiently developed methodologically for us to make any general inferences about effectiveness of particular models or approaches.

INTRODUCTION: Studies suggest that access and exposure to green-blue spaces (GBS) have beneficial impacts on mental health. However, the evidence base is limited with respect to longitudinal studies. The main aim of this longitudinal, population-wide, record-linked natural experiment, is to model the daily lived experience by linking GBS accessibility indices, residential GBS exposure and health data; to enable quantification of the impact of GBS on well-being and common mental health disorders, for a national population. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This research will estimate the impact of neighbourhood GBS access, GBS exposure and visits to GBS on the risk of common mental health conditions and the opportunity for promoting subjective well-being (SWB); both key priorities for public health. We will use a Geographic Information System (GIS) to create quarterly household GBS accessibility indices and GBS exposure using digital map and satellite data for 1.4 million homes in Wales, UK (2008-2018). We will link the GBS accessibility indices and GBS exposures to individual-level mental health outcomes for 1.7 million people with general practitioner (GP) data and data from the National Survey for Wales (n=~12 000) on well-being in the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank. We will examine if these associations are modified by multiple sociophysical variables, migration and socioeconomic disadvantage. Subgroup analyses will examine associations by different types of GBS. This longitudinal study will be augmented by cross-sectional research using survey data on self-reported visits to GBS and SWB. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: all data will be anonymised and linked within the privacy protecting SAIL Databank. We will be using anonymised data and therefore we are exempt from National Research Ethics Committee (NREC). An Information Governance Review Panel (IGRP) application (Project ID: 0562) to link these data has been approved.The research programme will be undertaken in close collaboration with public/patient involvement groups. A multistrategy programme of dissemination is planned with the academic community, policy-makers, practitioners and the public.

Engagement with nature is an important part of many people's lives, and the health and wellbeing benefits of nature-based activities are becoming increasingly recognised across disciplines from city planning to medicine. Despite this, urbanisation, challenges of modern life and environmental degradation are leading to a reduction in both the quantity and the quality of nature experiences. Nature-based health interventions (NBIs) can facilitate behavioural change through a somewhat structured promotion of nature-based experiences and, in doing so, promote improved physical, mental and social health and wellbeing. We conducted a Delphi expert elicitation process with 19 experts from seven countries (all named authors on this paper) to identify the different forms that such interventions take, the potential health outcomes and the target beneficiaries. In total, 27 NBIs were identified, aiming to prevent illness, promote wellbeing and treat specific physical, mental or social health and wellbeing conditions. These interventions were broadly categorized into those that change the environment in which people live, work, learn, recreate or heal (for example, the provision of gardens in hospitals or parks in cities) and those that change behaviour (for example, engaging people through organized programmes or other activities). We also noted the range of factors (such as socioeconomic variation) that will inevitably influence the extent to which these interventions succeed. We conclude with a call for research to identify the drivers influencing the effectiveness of NBIs in enhancing health and wellbeing.

BACKGROUND: We undertook a systematic review to evaluate the health benefits of environmental enhancement and conservation activities. We were concerned that a conventional process of study identification, focusing on exhaustive searches of bibliographic databases as the primary search method, would be ineffective, offering limited value. The focus of this study is comparing study identification methods. We compare (1) an approach led by searches of bibliographic databases with (2) an approach led by supplementary search methods. We retrospectively assessed the effectiveness and value of both approaches. METHODS: Effectiveness was determined by comparing (1) the total number of studies identified and screened and (2) the number of includable studies uniquely identified by each approach. Value was determined by comparing included study quality and by using qualitative sensitivity analysis to explore the contribution of studies to the synthesis. RESULTS: the bibliographic databases approach identified 21 409 studies to screen and 2 included qualitative studies were uniquely identified. Study quality was moderate, and contribution to the synthesis was minimal. The supplementary search approach identified 453 studies to screen and 9 included studies were uniquely identified. Four quantitative studies were poor quality but made a substantive contribution to the synthesis; 5 studies were qualitative: 3 studies were good quality, one was moderate quality, and 1 study was excluded from the synthesis due to poor quality. All 4 included qualitative studies made significant contributions to the synthesis. CONCLUSIONS: This case study found value in aligning primary methods of study identification to maximise location of relevant evidence.

BACKGROUND: School gardening programmes are increasingly popular, with suggested benefits including healthier eating and increased physical activity. Our objectives were to understand the health and well-being impacts of school gardens and the factors that help or hinder their success. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence (PROSPERO CRD42014007181). We searched multiple databases and used a range of supplementary approaches. Studies about school gardens were included if they reported on physical or mental health or well-being. Quantitative studies had to include a comparison group. Studies were quality appraised using appropriate tools. Findings were narratively synthesised and the qualitative evidence used to produce a conceptual framework to illustrate how benefits might be accrued. RESULTS: Evidence from 40 articles (21 quantitative studies; 16 qualitative studies; 3 mixed methods studies) was included. Generally the quantitative research was poor. Evidence for changes in fruit and vegetable intake was limited and based on self-report. The qualitative research was better quality and ascribed a range of health and well-being impacts to school gardens, with some idealistic expectations for their impact in the long term. Groups of pupils who do not excel in classroom activities were thought to particularly benefit. Lack of funding and over reliance on volunteers were thought to threaten success, while involvement with local communities and integration of gardening activities into the school curriculum were thought to support success. CONCLUSION: More robust quantitative research is needed to convincingly support the qualitative evidence suggesting wide ranging benefits from school gardens.

There is growing research and policy interest in the potential for using the natural environment to enhance human health and well-being. This resource may be underused as a health promotion tool to address the increasing burden of common health problems such as increased chronic diseases and mental health concerns. Outdoor environmental enhancement and conservation activities (EECA) (for instance unpaid litter picking, tree planting or path maintenance) offer opportunities for physical activity alongside greater connectedness with local environments, enhanced social connections within communities and improved self-esteem through activities that improve the locality which may, in turn, further improve well-being. Objectives: to assess the health and well-being impacts on adults following participation in environmental enhancement and conservation activities. Search methods: We contacted or searched the websites of more than 250 EECA organisations to identify grey literature. Resource limitations meant the majority of the websites were from UK, USA, Canada and Australia. We searched the following databases (initially in October 2012, updated October 2014, except CAB Direct, OpenGrey, SPORTDiscus, and TRIP Database), using a search strategy developed with our project advisory groups (predominantly leaders of EECA-type activities and methodological experts): ASSIA; BIOSIS; British Education Index; British Nursing Index; CAB Abstracts; Campbell Collaboration; Cochrane Public Health Specialized Register; DOPHER; EMBASE; ERIC; Global Health; GreenFILE; HMIC; MEDLINE-in-Process; MEDLINE; OpenGrey; PsychINFO; Social Policy and Practice; SPORTDiscus; TRoPHI; Social Services Abstracts; Sociological Abstracts; the Cochrane Library; TRIP database; and Web of Science. Citation and related article chasing was used. Searches were limited to studies in English published after 1990. Selection criteria: Two review authors independently screened studies. Included studies examined the impact of EECA on adult health and well-being. Eligible interventions needed to include each of the following: intended to improve the outdoor natural or built environment at either a local or wider level; took place in urban or rural locations in any country; involved active participation; and were NOT experienced through paid employment. We included quantitative and qualitative research. Includable quantitative study designs were: randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs, quasi-RCTs, cluster quasi-RCTs, controlled before-and-after studies, interrupted-time-series, cohort studies (prospective or retrospective), case-control studies and uncontrolled before-and-after studies (uBA). We included qualitative research if it used recognised qualitative methods of data collection and analysis. Data collection and analysis: One reviewer extracted data, and another reviewer checked the data. Two review authors independently appraised study quality using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool (for quantitative studies) or Wallace criteria (for qualitative studies). Heterogeneity of outcome measures and poor reporting of intervention specifics prevented meta-analysis so we synthesised the results narratively. We synthesised qualitative research findings using thematic analysis. Main results: Database searches identified 21,420 records, with 21,304 excluded at title/abstract. Grey literature searches identified 211 records. We screened 327 full-text articles from which we included 21 studies (reported in 28 publications): two case-studies (which were not included in the synthesis due to inadequate robustness), one case-control, one retrospective cohort, five uBA, three mixed-method (uBA, qualitative), and nine qualitative studies. The 19 studies included in the synthesis detailed the impacts to a total of 3,603 participants: 647 from quantitative intervention studies and 2630 from a retrospective cohort study; and 326 from qualitative studies (one not reporting sample size). Included studies shared the key elements of EECA defined above, but the range of activities varied considerably. Quantitative evaluation methods were heterogeneous. The designs or reporting of quantitative studies, or both, were rated as 'weak' quality with high risk of bias due to one or more of the following: inadequate study design, intervention detail, participant selection, outcome reporting and blinding. Participants' characteristics were poorly reported; eight studies did not report gender or age and none reported socio-economic status. Three quantitative studies reported that participants were referred through health or social services, or due to mental ill health (five quantitative studies), however participants' engagement routes were often not clear. Whilst the majority of quantitative studies (n = 8) reported no effect on one or more outcomes, positive effects were reported in six quantitative studies relating to short-term physiological, mental/emotional health, and quality-of-life outcomes. Negative effects were reported in two quantitative studies; one study reported higher levels of anxiety amongst participants, another reported increased mental health stress. The design or reporting, or both, of the qualitative studies was rated as good in three studies or poor in nine; mainly due to missing detail about participants, methods and interventions. Included qualitative evidence provided rich data about the experience of participation. Thematic analysis identified eight themes supported by at least one good quality study, regarding participants' positive experiences and related to personal/social identity, physical activity, developing knowledge, spirituality, benefits of place, personal achievement, psychological benefits and social contact. There was one report of negative experiences. Authors' conclusions: There is little quantitative evidence of positive or negative health and well-being benefits from participating in EECA. However, the qualitative research showed high levels of perceived benefit among participants. Quantitative evidence resulted from study designs with high risk of bias, qualitative evidence lacked reporting detail. The majority of included studies were programme evaluations, conducted internally or funded by the provider. The conceptual framework illustrates the range of interlinked mechanisms through which people believe they potentially achieve health and well-being benefits, such as opportunities for social contact. It also considers potential moderators and mediators of effect. One main finding of the review is the inherent difficulty associated with generating robust evidence of effectiveness for complex interventions. We developed the conceptual framework to illustrate how people believed they benefited. Investigating such mechanisms in a subsequent theory-led review might be one way of examining evidence of effect for these activities. The conceptual framework needs further refinement through linked reviews and more reliable evidence. Future research should use more robust study designs and report key intervention and participant detail.

BACKGROUND: the use of non-drug, non-health-service interventions has been proposed as a cost-effective alternative to help those with long-term conditions manage their illness and improve their health and well-being. Interventions typically involve accessing activities run by the third sector or community agencies and may also be described as non-medical referral, community referral or social prescribing. To be effective, patients need to be "transferred" from the primary care setting into the community and to maintain their participation in activities. However, it is not currently known how and why these approaches enable which people under what circumstances to reach community services that may benefit their health and well-being. METHODS: Database searches and extensive searching of grey sources will be carried out in an attempt to find evidence associated with referral and retention in social prescribing. After initial scoping searches, two main phases of searching will be conducted: (a) will focus on the identification of programme theories to illustrate how approaches to social prescribing work for different people and in different contexts and (b) will consist of targeted searches to locate evidence to refine these candidate theories into configurations of the contexts in which populations and the main mechanisms outcomes are achieved. Inclusion criteria will initially be broad in order to develop a clear picture of the ways in which social prescriptions might operate but may iteratively become more focused in response to initially identified evidence, for example, in terms of the population group. An expert advisory group consisting of professionals working in a range of organisations involved in social prescribing will be convened to check the approaches in the review and provide real-life experience of social prescribing. Findings from the review will be disseminated to commissioners, published in a peer-reviewed journal and used to help refine an intervention model for an outdoor nature-based group intervention. DISCUSSION: This realist review will explore why mechanisms of social prescribing work, for what groups of people and their impact on enrolment, attendance and adherence to programmes. The use of realist approaches to detail the social prescribing process is novel and will offer insights into effective transfer of patients. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016039491.

BACKGROUND: Many studies suggest that exposure to natural environments ('greenspace') enhances human health and wellbeing. Benefits potentially arise via several mechanisms including stress reduction, opportunity and motivation for physical activity, and reduced air pollution exposure. However, the evidence is mixed and sometimes inconclusive. One explanation may be that "greenspace" is typically treated as a homogenous environment type. However, recent research has revealed that different types and qualities of natural environments may influence health and wellbeing to different extents. METHODS: This ecological study explores this issue further using data on land cover type, bird species richness, water quality and protected or designated status to create small-area environmental indicators across Great Britain. Associations between these indicators and age/sex standardised prevalence of both good and bad health from the 2011 Census were assessed using linear regression models. Models were adjusted for indicators of socio-economic deprivation and rurality, and also investigated effect modification by these contextual characteristics. RESULTS: Positive associations were observed between good health prevalence and the density of the greenspace types, "broadleaf woodland", "arable and horticulture", "improved grassland", "saltwater" and "coastal", after adjusting for potential confounders. Inverse associations with bad health prevalence were observed for the same greenspace types, with the exception of "saltwater". Land cover diversity and density of protected/designated areas were also associated with good and bad health in the predicted manner. Bird species richness (an indicator of local biodiversity) was only associated with good health prevalence. Surface water quality, an indicator of general local environmental condition, was associated with good and bad health prevalence contrary to the manner expected, with poorer water quality associated with better population health. Effect modification by income deprivation and urban/rural status was observed for several of the indicators. CONCLUSIONS: the findings indicate that the type, quality and context of 'greenspace' should be considered in the assessment of relationships between greenspace and human health and wellbeing. Opportunities exist to further integrate approaches from ecosystem services and public health perspectives to maximise opportunities to inform policies for health and environmental improvement and protection.

Recent research suggests coastal environments may promote human health and wellbeing. This article explores the diverse coastal experiences sought out by residents of two towns in south west England to promote and preserve their personal wellbeing in the context of their everyday lives. It draws on the findings of an in-depth interpretive study conducted from May to November 2013 that examined the relative contribution of varied green and blue space experiences to individual wellbeing through the life course. Personalised activity maps produced using accelerometer and Global Positioning System (GPS) data were used to guide in-depth geo-narrative interviews with a purposive sample of 33 participants. This was combined with a subset of nine case study go-along interviews in places deemed therapeutic by the participants themselves, offering deeper insight into the lived experiences and relationships playing out within such places. Situated in a novel adaptation of the therapeutic landscapes framework, this article explores how symbolic, achievement-oriented, immersive and social experiences contributed to participants' sense of wellbeing in their local coastal areas. Participants expressed particularly strong and often enduring connections to the local coastline, with different coastal stretches perceived to cater for varied therapeutic needs and interests, at multiple scales and intensities. The findings suggest the need for greater acknowledgement of people's emotional, deeply embodied and often shared connections to the coast within coastal management policy and practice, both nationally and internationally. Importantly, such efforts should recognise the fluid, dynamic nature of this land-sea boundary, and the valued therapeutic experiences linked to this fluidity.

BACKGROUND: Action taken to enhance or conserve outdoor environments may benefit health and wellbeing through the process of participation but also through improving the environment. There is interest, amongst both health and environmental organisations, in using such activities as health promotion interventions. The objective of this systematic review was to investigate the health and wellbeing impacts of participation in environmental enhancement and conservation activities and to understand how these activities may be beneficial, to whom and in what circumstances or contexts. METHODS: a theory-led mixed-method systematic review was used to assess evidence of effect and to identify pathways to change (protocol: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ 10.1002/14651858.CD010351/full ). Due to the multi-disciplinary, dispersed and disparate body of evidence an extensive multi-stage search strategy was devised and undertaken. Twenty-seven databases and multiple sources of grey literature were searched and over 200 relevant organisations were contacted. The heterogenous evidence was synthesised using a narrative approach and a conceptual model was developed to illustrate the mechanisms of effect. Due to the limited nature of the evidence additional higher order evidence was sought to assess the plausibility of the proposed mechanisms of effect through which health and wellbeing may accrue. RESULTS: the majority of the quantitative evidence (13 studies; all poor quality and lower-order study designs) was inconclusive, though a small number of positive and negative associations were observed. The qualitative evidence (13 studies; 10 poor quality, 3 good) indicated that the activities were perceived to have value to health and wellbeing through a number of key mechanisms; including exposure to natural environments, achievement, enjoyment and social contact. Additional high level evidence indicated that these pathways were plausible. CONCLUSIONS: Despite interest in the use of environmental enhancement activities as a health intervention there is currently little direct evidence of effect, this is primarily due to a lack of robust study designs. Further rigorous research is needed to understand the potential of the activities to benefit health and environment.

Recent ecosystem service models have placed biodiversity as a central factor in the processes that link the natural environment to health. While it is recognized that disturbed ecosystems might negatively affect human well-being, it is not clear whether biodiversity is related to or can promote "good" human health and well-being. The aim of this study was to systematically identify, summarize, and synthesize research that had examined whether biodiverse environments are health promoting. The objectives were twofold: (1) to map the interdisciplinary field of enquiry and (2) to assess whether current evidence enables us to characterize the relationship. Due to the heterogeneity of available evidence a narrative synthesis approach was used, which is textual rather than statistical. Extensive searches identified 17 papers that met the inclusion criteria: 15 quantitative and 2 qualitative. The evidence was varied in disciplinary origin, with authors approaching the question using different study designs and methods, and conceptualizations of biodiversity, health, and well-being. There is some evidence to suggest that biodiverse natural environments promote better health through exposure to pleasant environments or the encouragement of health-promoting behaviors. There was also evidence of inverse relationships, particularly at a larger scale (global analyses). However, overall the evidence is inconclusive and fails to identify a specific role for biodiversity in the promotion of better health. High-quality interdisciplinary research is needed to produce a more reliable evidence base. of particular importance is identifying the specific ecosystem services, goods, and processes through which biodiversity may generate good health and well-being.

Direct contact with biodiversity is culturally important in a range of contexts. Many people even join conservation organisations to protect biodiversity that they will never encounter first-hand. Despite this, we have little idea how biodiversity affects people's well-being and health through these cultural pathways. Human health is sensitive to apparently trivial psychological stimuli, negatively affected by the risk of environmental degradation, and positively affected by contact with natural spaces. This suggests that well-being and health should be affected by biodiversity change, but few studies have begun to explore these relationships. Here, we develop a framework for linking biodiversity change with human cultural values, well-being, and health. We argue that better understanding these relations might be profoundly important for biodiversity conservation and public health. © 2014 the Authors.

This essay examines the assumptions of green space use underpinning much existing green space and health research. It considers opportunities to move the field forward through exploring two often overlooked aspects of individual agency: the influence of shifting life circumstances on personal wellbeing priorities and place practices, and the role of personal orientations to nature in shaping how green space wellbeing opportunities are perceived and experienced. It suggests such efforts could provide more nuanced insights into the complex, personal factors that define and drive individual choices regarding the use of green spaces for wellbeing over time, thereby strengthening our understanding of the salutogenic potential (and limits) of green spaces.

This essay examines the assumptions of green space use underpinning much existing green
space and health research. It considers opportunities to move the field forward through exploring two
often overlooked aspects of individual agency: the influence of shifting life circumstances on personal
wellbeing priorities and place practices, and the role of personal orientations to nature in shaping how
green space wellbeing opportunities are perceived and experienced. It suggests such efforts could
provide more nuanced insights into the complex, personal factors that define and drive individual
choices regarding the use of green spaces for wellbeing over time, thereby strengthening our
understanding of the salutogenic potential (and limits) of green spaces.