Footnotes Competing interests None declared

Humans have lived from equator to poles for millennia but are now increasingly intruding into the wild spaces of other species and steadily extruding ourselves from our own wild spaces, with a profound impact on: our relationship with the natural world; survival of other species; pollution; climate change; etc. We have yet to grasp how these changes directly impact our own health. The primary focus of this paper is on the beneficial influence of proximity to the natural environment. We summarize the evidence for associations between exposure to green space and blue space and improvements in health. In contrast, grey space - the urban landscape - largely presents hazards as well as reducing exposure to green and blue space and isolating us from the natural environment. We discuss various hypotheses that might explain why green, blue, and grey space affect health and focus particularly on the importance of the biodiversity hypothesis and the role of microbiota. We discuss possible mechanisms and exposure routes - air, soil, and water. We highlight the problem of exposure assessment, noting that many of our current tools are not fit for the purpose of understanding exposure to green and blue space, aerosols, soils, and water. We briefly discuss possible differences between indigenous perspectives on the nature of our relationship with the environment and the more dominant international-science view. Finally, we present research gaps and discuss future directions, particularly focusing on the ways in which we might - even in the absence of a full understanding of the mechanisms by which blue, green, and grey space affect our health - begin to implement policies to restore some balance to our environment of with the aim of reducing the large global burden of ill health.

Internationally, self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) has been shown to increase participation in cervical-cancer screening. In Aotearoa New Zealand, there are long-standing ethnic inequalities in cervical-cancer screening, incidence, and mortality, particularly for indigenous Māori women, as well as Pacific and Asian women. We invited never- and markedly under-screened (≥5 years overdue) 30-69-year-old Māori, Pacific, and Asian women to participate in an open-label, three-arm, community-based, randomised controlled trial, with a nested sub-study. We aimed to assess whether two specific invitation methods for self-sampling improved screening participation over usual care among the least medically served populations. Women were individually randomised 3:3:1 to: clinic-based self-sampling (CLINIC – invited to take a self-sample at their usual general practice); home-based self-sampling (HOME – mailed a kit and invited to take a self-sample at home); and usual care (USUAL – invited to attend a clinic for collection of a standard cytology sample). Neither participants nor research staff could be blinded to the intervention. In a subset of general practices, women who did not participate within three months of invitation were opportunistically invited to take a self-sample, either next time they attended a clinic or by mail. We randomised 3,553 women: 1,574 to CLINIC, 1,467 to HOME, and 512 to USUAL. Participation was highest in HOME (14.6% among Māori, 8.8% among Pacific, and 18.5% among Asian) with CLINIC (7.0%, 5.3% and 6.9%, respectively) and USUAL (2.0%, 1.7% and 4.5%, respectively) being lower. In fully adjusted models, participation was statistically significantly more likely in HOME than USUAL: Māori OR=9.7, (95%CI 3.0-31.5); Pacific OR=6.0 (1.8-19.5); and Asian OR=5.1 (2.4-10.9). There were no adverse outcomes reported. After three months, 2,780 non-responding women were invited to participate in a non-randomised, opportunistic, follow-on substudy. After 6 months,192 (6.9%) additional women had taken a self-sample. Using recruitment methods that mimic usual practice, we provide critical evidence that self-sampling increases screening among the groups of women (never and under-screened) who experience the most barriers in Aotearoa New Zealand, although the absolute level of participation through this population approach was modest. Follow-up for most women was routine but a small proportion required intensive support. ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12618000367246 (date registered 12/3/2018) https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=371741&isReview=true; UTN: U1111-1189-0531 Health Research Council of New Zealand (HRC 16/405) http://publichealth.massey.ac.nz/assets/Uploads/Study-protocol-V2.1Self-sampling-for-HPV-screening-a-community-trial.pdf

This paper reflects on the influences and outcomes of He Kāinga Oranga/Housing and Health Research Programme over 25 years, and their impact on housing and health policy in Aotearoa and internationally. Working in partnership particularly with Māori and Pasifika communities, we have conducted randomised control trials which have shown the health and broad co‐benefits of retrofitted insulation, heating and remediation of home hazards, which have underpinned government policy in the Warm Up NZ‐Heat Smart programme and the Healthy Homes Standards for rental housing. These trials have been included as evidence in the WHO Housing and Health Guidelines and led to our designation as a WHO Collaborating Centre on Housing and Wellbeing. We are increasingly explicitly weaving Māori frameworks, values and processes with traditional Western science.