Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet

Background: With the global burden of disease increasing, particularly in relation to often preventable chronic diseases, researchers and clinicians are keen to identify interventions that can mitigate ill health and enhance the psychological wellbeing of people living with long-term conditions (LTCs). It is long established that engagement with nature can support human health and wellbeing, and in recent years, nature-based interventions (NBIs) have been advanced as of potential benefit. This review thus sought to systematically appraise published evidence of the application of NBIs to address psychological wellbeing for those living with LTCs. Methods: A systematic search of three databases, PsycINFO, MEDLINE and SCOPUS, was undertaken, and the BestBETs quality assessment checklist was used to appraise methodological quality of elicited studies. Results: Of 913 studies identified, 13 studies (12 using quantitative methods, one qualitative) were used. Included papers reported use of a variety of psychological outcomes alongside more circumscribed physiological outcomes. Quality appraisal showed modest robustness, some methodological weaknesses and a dominance of application in developed countries, yet synthesis of studies suggested that reported psychological and physiological outcomes present a strong argument for NBIs having a promising and positive impact on psychological wellbeing. Conclusions: NBIs have positive psychological and physiological impacts on people with LTCs, suggesting they may be a suitable addition to current maintenance treatment. Future research should focus on minimising study bias and increasing the potential for cross-cultural applications.

To provide an overview of healthcare practitioners' experiences of breaking bad news. Interpretative meta synthesis of 14 qualitative papers identified through a systematic search. Data were extracted and constructs elicited via reciprocal translational analysis. Findings comprised four inter-connected themes: (1) Discomfort, particularly difficult emotional and physical responses to breaking bad news; (2) Relational distress, connected to attachment and identification with patients; (3) Inadequate clinician, indicating the fear and rumination about the possibility of getting it wrong and the subsequent self-blame; and (4) Only human, highlighting a culture of invulnerability where practitioner self-care is deprioritised. Breaking bad news provokes significant distress for practitioners, particularly where they experience strong attachment to or identification with a patient. Breaking bad news was understood as an isolating experience and staff's non-disclosure of difficulties appeared to sustain a culture of invulnerability in which admission of distress was not encouraged. Given the adverse impacts and potential for practitioner burnout, organisations should acknowledge ramifications and offer time for staff to process the delivery of bad news, promote a culture of collective care and provide space for reflective practice.

Background: Social prescribing (such as green social prescribing), aims to address health disparities cross-culturally to improve well-being. However, evidence highlights racial disparities in relation to access to quality green space (including local/national parks and recreational spaces). This review aimed to identify the psycho-socioeconomic barriers to green space access for racialised individuals/families and Black Indigenous People of Colour (BIPOC), to understand what cultural adaptations might be made to help support them to access green social prescribing within the UK. Method: A narrative systematic review was conducted to identify barriers to green space access for racialised individuals/families and BIPOC. Searches of publication databases (APA PsycInfo, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [CDSR], Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL], Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature [CINAHL], and SCOPUS Preview) were undertaken from January to February 2022, to identify quantitative peer reviewed studies. Of the 4493 abstracts identified, ten studies met the inclusion criteria and were included for final review. Results: The results suggest that interpersonal, practical (such as transportation costs, entrance fees and lodging costs) and environmental factors can act as barriers to green space access for racialised individuals/families. Most frequently reported barriers were perceptions of safety and costs associated with travel and accessing green spaces, particularly for families. Conclusion: Factors such as diversity-friendly schemes (e.g., multiple languages on signs and additional prayer spaces in parks), funding and strategies to improve safety should be considered in the design and commissioning of green space and green social prescribing initiatives in primary care. By mitigating these barriers green space can become more accessible and improve inclusivity for racialised individuals/families. Future research could explore the inter-racial differences between racialised populations and which mechanisms reduce barriers to access and in what contexts.