Search

Background: Unhealthy diet, physical inactivity, and social disconnection are important modifiable risk factors for non-communicable and other chronic diseases, which might be alleviated through nature-based community interventions. We tested whether a community gardening intervention could reduce these common health risks in an adult population that is diverse in terms of age, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status., Methods: In this observer-blind, randomised, controlled trial, we recruited individuals who were on Denver Urban Garden waiting lists for community gardens in Denver and Aurora (CO, USA), aged 18 years or older, and had not gardened in the past 2 years. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a randomised block design in block sizes of two, four, or six, to receive a community garden plot (intervention group) or remain on a waiting list and not garden (control group). Researchers were masked to group allocation. Primary outcomes were diet, physical activity, and anthropometry; secondary outcomes were perceived stress and anxiety. During spring (April to early June, before randomisation; timepoint 1 [T1]), autumn (late August to October; timepoint 2 [T2]), and winter (January to March, after the intervention; timepoint 3 [T3]), participants completed three diet recalls, 7-day accelerometry, surveys, and anthropometry. Analyses were done using the intention-to-treat principle (ie, including all participants randomly assigned to groups, and assessed as randomised). We used mixed models to test time-by-intervention hypotheses at an α level of 0·04, with T2 and T3 intervention effects at an α level of 0·005 (99·5% CI). Due to potential effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on outcomes, we excluded all participant data collected after Feb 1, 2020. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03089177, and data collection is now complete., Findings: Between Jan 1, 2017, and June 15, 2019, 493 adults were screened and 291 completed baseline measures and were randomly assigned to the intervention (n=145) or control (n=146) groups. Mean age was 41·5 years (SD 13·5), 238 (82%) of 291 participants were female, 52 (18%) were male, 99 (34%) identified as Hispanic, and 191 (66%) identified as non-Hispanic. 237 (81%) completed measurements before the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. One (<1%) participant in the intervention group had an adverse allergic event in the garden. Significant time-by-intervention effects were observed for fibre intake (p=0·034), with mean between-group difference (intervention minus control) at T2 of 1·41 g per day (99·5% CI -2·09 to 4·92), and for moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (p=0·012), with mean between-group difference of 5·80 min per day (99·5% CI -4·44 to 16·05). We found no significant time-by-intervention interactions for combined fruit and vegetable intake, Healthy Eating Index (measured using Healthy Eating Index-2010), sedentary time, BMI, and waist circumference (all p>0·04). Difference score models showed greater reductions between T1 and T2 in perceived stress and anxiety among participants in the intervention group than among those in the control group., Interpretation: Community gardening can provide a nature-based solution, accessible to a diverse population including new gardeners, to improve wellbeing and important behavioural risk factors for non-communicable and chronic diseases., Funding: American Cancer Society, University of Colorado Cancer Centre, University of Colorado Boulder, National Institutes of Health, US Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Michigan AgBioResearch Hatch projects., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JRH owns controlling interest in Connecting Health Innovations (CHI), a company that has licensed the right to his invention of the dietary inflammatory index (DII) and for which JRH and the University of South Carolina have secured a federally registered trademark for the DII. The CHI aims to develop computer and smartphone applications for patient counselling and dietary intervention in clinical settings. CHI owns all derivative products, including the energy-adjusted DII (E-DII). All CHI-related activity occurred outside the submitted work, which includes royalties paid to CHI. JRH confirms that the subject matter of this manuscript did not have any direct bearing on that work, nor has that activity exerted any influence on this project. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To describe and evaluate recruitment approaches for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of community gardening in Denver, Colorado. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03089177)., Methods: We used community and staff feedback to adapt our recruitment approach from year 1 to year 2 of a multi-year RCT to address health behaviors related to cancer prevention. In year 2, we added a full-time recruitment coordinator, designed and implemented a tracking spreadsheet, and engaged advisory committee members, local garden leaders, and health partners in planning and outreach. Screening and consent rates, staff time and costs for years 1 and 2 are compared., Results: In year 1, recruitment methods yielded 136 initial contacts, 106 screenings and 64 consented participants. In year 2, enhanced staffing and outreach yielded 257 initial contacts, 193 screenings, and 123 consented participants. Personal referrals, health fairs, NextDoor, and fliers yielded the highest percentage of consented participants. School and community meetings yielded the lowest yield for potential participants. Spanish-speaking participants were mostly recruited by direct methods. Compared to year 1 recruitment, which required 707 h of staff time and cost $14,446, year 2 recruitment required 1224 h of staff time and cost $22,992. Average cost for retained participants was $226 (year 1) and $186 (year 2)., Discussion: Those planning pragmatic clinical trials with recruitment in multi-ethnic communities can use the results from this study to understand the efficacy of techniques, and to budget costs for recruitment. While our culturally-tailored recruitment methods cost more, they provided more effective and efficient ways to reach recruitment goals., (© 2019 The Author(s).)