| Title |
A Review of Epidemiologic Studies on Greenness and Health: Updated Literature Through 2017
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Environmental Health Reports, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40572-018-0179-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kelvin C. Fong, Jaime E. Hart, Peter James |
| Abstract |
Many studies suggest that exposure to natural vegetation, or greenness, may be beneficial for a variety of health outcomes. We summarize the recent research in this area. We observed consistent and strong evidence of associations for higher greenness with improvements in birth weights and physical activity, as well as lower mortality rates. Recent studies also suggested that exposure to greenness may lower levels of depression and depressive symptoms. The evidence on greenness and cardiovascular health remains mixed. Findings are also inconsistent for greenness measures and asthma and allergies. Our knowledge of the impacts of greenness on a wide variety of health outcomes continues to evolve. Future research should incorporate information on specific species and some qualities of natural greenness that might drive health outcomes, integrate exposure assessments that incorporate personal mobility into analyses, and include prospective designs to add to the growing evidence that nature exposure positively affects health. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 28% |
| United States | 1 | 6% |
| Ireland | 1 | 6% |
| Spain | 1 | 6% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| Denmark | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 8 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 56% |
| Scientists | 6 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 419 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 419 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 66 | 16% |
| Researcher | 61 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 51 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 23 | 5% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 5% |
| Other | 61 | 15% |
| Unknown | 138 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 51 | 12% |
| Environmental Science | 47 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 29 | 7% |
| Psychology | 22 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 5% |
| Other | 81 | 19% |
| Unknown | 170 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 85. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 January 2024.
All research outputs
#507,877
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Current Environmental Health Reports
#24
of 357 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,925
of 453,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Environmental Health Reports
#1
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 357 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 453,594 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.