| Popis: |
Summary: Background: Green space is an important part of the human living environment, with many epidemiological studies estimating its impact on human health. However, no study has quantitatively assessed the credibility of the existing evidence, impeding their translations into policy decisions and hindering researchers from identifying new research gaps. This overview aims to evaluate and rank such evidence credibility. Methods: Following the PRISMA guideline, we systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases for systematic reviews with meta-analyses concerning green spaces and health outcomes published up to January 15, 2024. We categorized the credibility of meta-analytical evidence from interventional studies into four levels (i.e., high, moderate, low, and very low) using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework, based on five domains including risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias. Further, we recalculated all the meta-analyses from observational studies and classified evidence into five levels (i.e., convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, and non-significant) by considering stringent thresholds for P-values, sample size, robustness, heterogeneity, and testing for biases. Findings: In total, 154 meta-analysed associations (interventional = 44, observational = 110) between green spaces and health outcomes were graded. Among meta-analyses from interventional studies, zero, four (wellbeing, systolic blood pressure, negative affect, and positive affect), 20, and 20 associations between green spaces and health outcomes were graded as high, moderate, low, and very low credibility evidence, respectively. Among meta-analyses from observational studies, one (cardiovascular disease mortality), four (prevalence/incidence of diabetes mellitus, preterm birth, and small for gestational age infant, and all-cause mortality), 12, 22, and 71 associations were categorized as convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, and non-significant evidence, respectively. Interpretation: The current evidence largely confirms beneficial associations between green spaces and human health. However, only a small subset of these associations can be deemed to have a high or convincing credibility. Hence, future better designed primary studies and meta-analyses are still needed to provide higher quality evidence for informing health promotion strategies. Funding: The National Natural Science Foundation of China of China; the Guangzhou Science and Technology Program; the Guangdong Medical Science and Technology Research Fund; the Research Grant Council of the Hong Kong SAR; and Sino-German mobility program. |
