Search

The COVID-19 pandemic has created considerable implications for healthcare staff around the globe. During the pandemic, the frontline healthcare workers experience intense anxiety, stress, burnout, and psychological breakdown, with severe implications on their mental and physical well-being. In addition to these implications, anxiety and stress can hinder their productivity and ability to perform their duties efficiently. The literature indicates that hospital gardens and contact with nature can help alleviate psychological distress among hospital staff. However, few studies investigated the role of outdoor spaces as areas for respite and work breaks in healthcare facilities during the pandemic. The present opinion paper highlights the challenges of job stress and psychological distress health workers face during the pandemic. This article also underscores the role of hospital outdoor spaces and garden facilities in coping with the challenges. While other measures to reduce stress among hospital staff and ensure their health and safety are important, hospital administrators and relevant government agencies should also emphasize the provision of gardens and open spaces in healthcare facilities. These spaces can act as potential areas for respite for hospital staff to help them cope with the stress and anxiety accumulated through working under crises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: During the last several decades, researchers have produced abundant evidence of the environmental impacts on stress, attention, and physical activity. More recently, scholars have turned their focus to the influence environments have on mental wellness. Therefore, a critical review of this more recent research is both timely and crucial for setting the future research agenda. Methods: In this article, we examined 65 papers published between 2008 and 2019 that examined the environmental correlates of a wide variety of mental health outcomes. We coded each study by type of environment, research design, mental health measurement scale used, and p -value. Results: We categorized the research studies into six groups based on mental health outcomes: emotions, moods, vitality, executive function, stress, and general well-being. Our review revealed several trends among the studies, including a heavy focus on nature and outdoor environments with little attention to workplace or residential environments; a lack of consensus on how to operationalize the environment; a heavy reliance on self-reported ratings using a wide variety of scales, many focused on the same outcome; and a disproportionate focus on short-term health effects. Conclusions: There is a need for greater consensus on research constructs and health outcome measurements, focused on a wider variety of environmental settings and scales, in order to better inform evidence-based environmental design practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]