Search

Copyright of Australian Social Work is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objectives: To explore cancer patients’ recommendations for nature engagement based on their subjective nature experiences and observations in the cancer setting. The rationale was to gain practical insight for delineating relevant and translatable nature-based care and design opportunities in oncology contexts. Background: Innovative cancer care services are needed to respond to growing demand and shifting healthcare needs. Engagement with nature has shown multiple health benefits and presents a promising opportunity for application in healthcare to improve outcomes. Method: Qualitative research design using content analysis was used. Eligible adults with any cancer diagnosis participated in semistructured and audio-recorded interviews. Transcribed textual data included responses to two open-ended questions querying about participants’ recommendations related to nature-based opportunities in the cancer setting. Deductive analysis used three predetermined categories: “recommendation: features,” “recommendation: functions,” and “cautions.” Results: Twenty patients with cancer (nine female) participated. Broad recommendations incorporated (1) using nature for vital sensory stimulation and engagement, (2) using nature for personal space and freedom to enable private and social exploration, (3) using views to nature for distraction and comfort, and (4) accessing nature for physical activity and movement. Three critical factors were determined for avoiding adverse experiences: determining appropriate expenditure and resourcing, selection of appropriate nature-based design materials, and exercising caution around demanding nature engagement and harsh weather conditions. Conclusions: Cancer patients’ recommendations reveal the importance of engaging with nature in their experiences of health and recovery. The findings can inform planning appropriate and safe integration of beneficial nature engagement in cancer settings and support services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate patient, staff, and carer responses to an environmental intervention in an oncology clinic waiting room and evaluate the acceptability of artificial plant materials. Design Postintervention: Cross-sectional survey study. Setting: Oncology outpatient clinic waiting room located in a metropolitan comprehensive cancer center in Australia. Main Outcome Measure: Observer ratings of perceived qualities and effects of lifelike (fake) plants while spending time in the waiting room. Participants: Convenience sample (N = 143) consisted of 73 cancer patients, 13 staff, 52 carers, and 5 "others" aged between 24 and 89 years (M = 56, SD = 14.5). Intervention: Artificial plant arrangements, hanging installations, two movable green walls, and one rock garden on wheels placed throughout the outpatients' clinic waiting room. Results: Eighty-one percent (115/142) of respondents noticed the green features when first entering the waiting room and 67% (90/134) noticed they were artificial. Eighty-one percent (115/142) indicated "like/like a lot" when reporting their first reaction to the green features. Forty-eight percent (68/143) were positively affected and 23% (33/143) were very positively affected. Eighty-one percent (110/135) agreed/strongly agreed that "The greenery brightens the waiting room," 62% (80/130) agreed/strongly agreed that they "prefer living plants," and 76% (101/133) agreed/strongly agreed that "'lifelike' plants are better than no plants." Comments included mostly positive appraisals and occasional adverse reactions to artificial plants. No significant differences were found between patients', staff, and carers' reactions. Conclusions: The environmental intervention positively impacted patients', staff, and carers' perceptions of the oncology waiting room environment. Patients, staff, and carers mostly accepted artificial plants as an alternative design solution to real plants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]