Search

This paper considers a specific and innovative methodological approach to investigating the impacts of a particular mode of therapeutic 'green exercise' in enhancing the mental health1 and wellbeing of a group2 of volunteers attending a unique community-based project in a woodland setting in the North of England, UK. The paper was influenced by the distinct lack of studies embracing an ethnographic methodology in understanding the specific impacts of green exercise therapeutic interventions. Hitherto, research has largely focused upon the use of quantitative or less context-sensitive qualitative methodologies; pertinently, prior studies have typically underemphasised the mediating and moderating influences underpinning reported positive outcomes from green exercise (Rogersen et al, 2020; Clatworthy et al, 2013; Gladwell et al, 2013; Okvat & Zutra, 2011). The study employed ethnographic data collection including: compilation of fieldwork notes and reflective diaries, including an audio-recorded conversation between the two researchers; taking photographs of participants at work; using participants' own photographs of the occupations they engaged with (that held specific value and meanings regarding place and connection to nature); and an embedded, innovative use of a 'think aloud' method, which elicits participant responses 'in the moment' as volunteers were working on autotelic activities within a nature-based environment, including, but not exclusively: dry-stone walling, gardening, horticulture and pond construction. Two field-based researchers, with a background in sports development and occupational therapy respectively, firstly familiarised themselves with the volunteers and the setting over a six-week pre-data collection period, in order to gain an insider perspective regarding the social dynamics of the group, and the special ethos and cultural dynamics of the centre. Findings suggest that such a methodological approach to investigating the impacts of a green exercise modality is not only productive, but also essential in fully appreciating the mechanisms and processes underpinning enhancements to mental health and wellbeing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Speech and language therapy provision for aphasia (a language disorder) post stroke has been studied over time through surveys completed by speech and language therapists. This paper revisits provision based on what was received by 278 patients in 21 UK speech and language therapy departments in 2014–2016. Aims: To explore the speech and language therapy received by community dwelling people with post stroke aphasia in the UK. Methods and procedures: A quantitative content analysis was conducted by two speech and language therapist researchers. Therapy goals recorded were coded into categories and subcategories. Descriptive statistics were used to identify the frequency with which goal categories were targeted, average therapy time received, length and frequency of therapy sessions, personnel involved and mode of delivery. Outcomes and results: Forty-five percent of participants were in receipt of therapy in the three month window observed. Six goal categories were identified. Rehabilitation was the most frequent (60%) followed by enabling (17.2%), review (4.3%), assessment (3.6%), supportive (3.5%) and activity to support therapy (2.8%). The median amount of therapy received in three months was 6.3 hours at an average of one 60-minute session every two weeks. Seventy-seven percent of therapy sessions were delivered by qualified speech and language therapists and 23% by assistants. Ninety percent of sessions were one to one, face to face sessions whilst 9.5% were group sessions. Discussion: In line with previous reports, speech and language therapy for community dwelling stroke survivors with aphasia is restricted. Rehabilitation is a large focus of therapy but the intensity and dose with which it is provided is substantially lower than that required for an effective outcome. Despite this, one to one face to face therapy is favoured. More efficient methods to support more therapeutic doses of therapy are not commonly used in routine clinical services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-021-09981-1 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]