IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lee/wpaper/1410.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The impact of care farms and green care on health-related quality of life: a systematic review guiding cost-effectiveness analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Nyantara Wickramasekera

    (Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds)

  • Sandy Tubeuf

    (Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds)

  • Thomas Veale

    (Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds)

  • Judy Wright

    (Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds)

  • Helen Elsey

    (Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds)

  • Jenni Murray

    (Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds)

Abstract

Background: Care farms are increasingly commissioned by public sector and health sector organizations to provide support to vulnerable people. It is a complex intervention that provides farming activities for therapeutic purposes. The evidence base assessing the effectiveness of care farms is relatively recent and to date no systematic review has been conducted to assess the impact of care farms using health-related-quality-of-life measures. Aim: This systematic review aims to identify any existing literature evaluating the impact of care farms and green care interventions in adult populations, with a specific focus on health-relatedquality- of-life measures that could be used for a cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analysis. Methods: 19 general health and social science databases were searched systematically in November 2013. Care farm and green care interventions, for adults measuring HRQOL outcome were included and assessed for methodological quality using the Cochrane’s six item risk of bias checklist. Results: Five studies with four hundred and eighty-four participants were included in this review. Two studies favoured the interventions, whereas three studies did not find strong evidence that the intervention had an effect on participants’ health-related-quality-of-life at post-intervention follow-up. These results indicated that care farms and green care may benefit certain populations such as breast and lung cancer patients, the elderly, and people with affective disorders. Conclusions: Given the small number of available studies and their methodological limitations we cannot make unequivocal conclusions about the impact of care farms on health-relatedquality- of-life. With this caveat, some evidence suggests that care farms and green care interventions can improve quality of life for some participants. However, this review highlights the need to conduct more high quality trials with larger sample sizes and longer term follow-up.

Suggested Citation

  • Nyantara Wickramasekera & Sandy Tubeuf & Thomas Veale & Judy Wright & Helen Elsey & Jenni Murray, 2014. "The impact of care farms and green care on health-related quality of life: a systematic review guiding cost-effectiveness analysis," Working Papers 1410, Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds.
  • Handle: RePEc:lee:wpaper:1410
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://medhealth.leeds.ac.uk/download/1307/auhe_wp14_10
    File Function: First version, 2014
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    health-related quality-of-life; care farms; green care; cost-effectiveness; cost-utility;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I31 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General Welfare, Well-Being
    • I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:lee:wpaper:1410. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Judy Wright (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/heleeuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.