Loneliness among people with severe mental illness during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from a linked UK population cohort study

Therapeutic Community Gardening as a Green Social Prescription for Mental Ill-Health: Impact, Barriers, and Facilitators from the Perspective of Multiple Stakeholders

The UK government has invested £5.77 million in green social prescribing to prevent and tackle mental ill-health. Therapeutic community gardening, one type of green social prescription, provides a range of health outcomes. However, for increased accessibility, a greater understanding of how it impacts mental health and the facilitators and barriers to referral, uptake, and attendance by individuals with mental health problems is required. We conducted and thematically analysed interviews with thirteen stakeholders including social prescribing link workers and garden staff; and focus groups with twenty garden members. The mechanisms by which therapeutic community gardening were suggested to impact mental health were by engaging members with nature and the outdoors, providing hope for the future and facilitating social support and relationships. Factors facilitating referral, uptake, and attendance included a holistic and person-centred approach, which is flexible around health needs. Barriers included awareness of the full offering of therapeutic community gardens and accessibility, in terms of physical location and waiting lists. Given that nature-based interventions have the potential to protect and enhance population health and offer cost savings through reduced reliance on other health services; overcoming these barriers is key to ensuring that therapeutic community gardening is more widely available as an additional mental health treatment.

A Year Into the Pandemic: The Diversity of Experience Amongst People With Severe Mental Ill Health

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has amplified pre-existing health inequalities and people with severe mental ill health (SMI) are one of the groups at greatest risk. In this study, we explored the effects of the pandemic and pandemic restrictions on people with SMI during the first year of the pandemic.

METHODS

We conducted a longitudinal study in a sample of people with SMI. The inception survey was carried out between July and December 2020. Participants were then re-surveyed between January and March 2021. People were contacted by telephone and invited to take part in the study over the phone, online or by postal questionnaire. Across both waves we asked participants about their physical and mental health, health risk behaviors, well-being, loneliness, and employment status.

RESULTS

Three hundred and sixty-seven people with SMI completed the inception survey and 249 people completed the follow up. Whilst some people reported no change in their physical (77, 31%) or mental health (60, 24%) over the course of the pandemic 53 (21%) reported a continuing decline in physical health and 52 (21%) reported a continuing decline in mental health. Participants who maintained a daily routine or reported no decline in physical health were found to be associated with no deterioration in mental health (Daily routine OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.11-4.64; no reported physical health decline OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.17-0.70). Participants were less likely to be occupationally active in the first phase of the pandemic compared to before the pandemic and in the second phase of the pandemic. However, there was no one single experience of people with SMI and similar to studies in the general populations a range of different scenarios was experienced.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed a series of factors that might amplify pre-existing health inequalities. Health systems should be mindful of this, and should redouble efforts to set in place changes to practice and policy, which can mitigate these inequalities. Examples might include; raising awareness of the importance of ensuring that people with SMI receive an annual physical health check and supporting people to maintain a daily routine.