AbstractAs part of the Community Activation for Prevention (CAPS) randomized controlled trial (RCT) of community gardening, we conducted a process evaluation to assess the implementation of a community gardening intervention over nine months, as measured by reach, fidelity (delivery, receipt, enactment), and acceptability.

摘要作为社区园艺社区预防激活（CAPS）随机对照试验（RCT）的一部分，我们进行了一项过程评估，以评估社区园艺干预措施在9个月内的实施情况，以达到，保真度（交付，接收，颁布）和可接受性。

Evaluation instruments included repeated semi-structured interviews with study participants, direct observation of community garden sites, and an exit survey of participants. Primary outcomes were diet, physical activity, and anthropometry; secondary outcomes were stress and anxiety. The CAPS trial included 291 participants (19% non-white; 34% Hispanic/Latino; 35% without a college degree; 58% with income < $50,000 per year).

评估工具包括与研究参与者的重复半结构化访谈，对社区花园场地的直接观察以及参与者的退出调查。主要结果是饮食，身体活动和人体测量；次要结果是压力和焦虑。CAPS试验包括291名参与者（19%为非白人；34%为西班牙裔/拉丁裔；35%为无大学学历；58%为年收入5万美元）。

Intervention delivery and receipt were high for environmental supports. Garden social events were offered by 73% of gardens, although only 48% of intervention participants reported attending these events. Of the 145 participants assigned to the gardening intervention, 97 (67%) reported gardening the entire season and reported visiting the community garden a median of 90 min per week (range: 0–840).

环境支持的干预交付和接收率很高。73%的花园提供了花园社交活动，尽管只有48%的干预参与者报告参加了这些活动。在分配给园艺干预的145名参与者中，有97名（67%）报告说整个季节都在园艺，并报告说每周参观社区花园的时间中位数为90分钟（范围：0-840）。

Of the participants who completed the exit survey (48%), 89% were highly satisfied with the overall garden experience. The CAPS trial was favorably received and implemented with high fidelity, supporting the validity of the trial outcomes. These findings suggest that community gardens are a viable health promotion strategy that can be successfully implemented among new gardeners from diverse backgrounds.

在完成退出调查的参与者中（48%），89%对整体花园体验非常满意。CAPS试验以高保真度得到了良好的接受和实施，支持了试验结果的有效性。这些发现表明，社区花园是一种可行的健康促进策略，可以在来自不同背景的新园丁中成功实施。

Strategies that engage new gardeners in the social aspects of the garden environment and connect gardeners with garden “mentors” or “buddies” to ensure new gardeners achieve success in their first years of gardening are recommended.Tri.

建议采取策略，让新园丁参与花园环境的社会方面，并将园丁与花园“导师”或“朋友”联系起来，以确保新园丁在园艺的头几年取得成功。三。

IntroductionCommunity and allotment gardens have been widely adopted across the world, and the literature is rich with research on the benefits of gardens on health and well-being1. These studies have shown that community gardens offer a promising system through which we can learn about lifestyle interventions to promote health behavior change, psychosocial and physical health outcomes across diverse populations in different social, cultural, geographic, economic, and environmental contexts.

引言社区和分配花园已在世界范围内被广泛采用，文献丰富，研究了花园对健康和福祉的益处1。这些研究表明，社区花园提供了一个有前途的系统，通过该系统，我们可以了解生活方式干预措施，以促进不同社会，文化，地理，经济和环境背景下不同人群的健康行为改变，心理社会和身体健康结果。

Moreover, gardens have been shown to influence health and wellbeing by activating emotional (intrapersonal), social (interpersonal), and environmental processes that are central to healthy lifestyle habits2,3. Eating well and maintaining regular physical activity, for example, help prevent cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic diseases4.Past observational, quasi-experimental, and qualitative studies have shown that vegetable gardening was feasible in the home5,6, community7, and hospital8 contexts.

此外，花园已被证明通过激活对健康生活习惯至关重要的情绪（个人内部），社交（人际）和环境过程来影响健康和福祉2,3。例如，吃得好和保持有规律的体育锻炼有助于预防癌症，心脏病，糖尿病和其他慢性疾病。过去的观察，准实验和定性研究表明，蔬菜园艺在家庭5,6，社区7和医院8中是可行的。

Participants in previous gardening studies reported high levels of satisfaction with these interventions, indicating that gardening was generally acceptable as a behavioral intervention5,6,8. However, the designs of these studies preclude our ability to determine whether the positive effects of gardening were the result of the garden itself or whether people seeking improvements to their health and wellbeing self-selected into the garden because they already have these healthy habits.

之前园艺研究的参与者报告说，对这些干预措施的满意度很高，这表明园艺作为一种行为干预措施通常是可以接受的5,6,8。然而，这些研究的设计使我们无法确定园艺的积极影响是花园本身的结果，还是寻求改善健康和福祉的人之所以选择进入花园，是因为他们已经有了这些健康的习惯。

Thus, there is a need for experimental studies of gardens with randomization to improve our causal understanding of how gardens can improve health and well-being1,9. Moreover, co-designing a process evaluation in tandem with a randomized controlled trial can serve to contextualize and validate t.

因此，有必要对花园进行随机化的实验研究，以提高我们对花园如何改善健康和福祉的因果理解1,9。此外，与随机对照试验一起共同设计过程评估可以用于背景化和验证t。

“The plot was full of weeds, and it was a lot of work to get the soil ready. I felt overwhelmed by the size of the plot.” (Participant 79)

“这块地长满了杂草，要把土壤准备好需要做很多工作。我对这块地的大小感到不知所措。”（参与者79）

All intervention participants were connected to garden leaders at their assigned garden via email or phone at the beginning of the gardening season. Occasionally, participants reached out to study staff for help in their garden, particularly at the beginning of the season. To follow standard practices established by DUG, staff encouraged and assisted participants in connecting with their garden leader or Master Community Gardeners (MCG) available through DUG.

在园艺季节开始时，所有干预参与者都通过电子邮件或电话与指定花园的花园领导联系。偶尔，参与者会在花园里向研究人员寻求帮助，特别是在赛季初。为了遵循达格制定的标准做法，工作人员鼓励并协助参与者与达格提供的花园领导或社区园丁大师（MCG）联系。

In instances where participants did not have sufficient support and considered dropping out, study staff met participants at garden sites to help, using standard practices established by DUG staff and MCGs.Additionally, some participants were assigned to garden plots later than others due to recruitment delays, T1 data collection requirements, and garden opening delays due to weather or construction.

在参与者没有足够支持并考虑辍学的情况下，研究人员会在花园场地与参与者会面，以帮助他们，使用由Dag staff和MCGs制定的标准做法。此外，由于招聘延迟，T1数据收集要求以及由于天气或施工导致的花园开放延迟，一些参与者被分配到花园的时间比其他人晚。

Some of these participants (n = 15, 15%) mentioned that due to these delays, they could not attend the garden orientation, limiting connections with other gardeners, shortening the gardening season, and impacting the overall garden productivity. One participant noted:.

其中一些参与者（15%，15%）提到，由于这些延误，他们无法参加花园定向，限制了与其他园丁的联系，缩短了园艺季节，并影响了整体花园的生产力。一位与会者指出：。

“Getting started late was a challenge-the plants didn't have time to grow and are comparatively smaller than those belonging to other gardeners. The zucchini is growing but very slowly and too small to pick.” (Participant 412)

“起步晚是一个挑战，植物没有时间生长，并且比其他园丁的植物相对较小。西葫芦正在生长，但生长速度很慢，太小而无法采摘。”（参与者412）

2. Seeds and seedlingSeeds and seedlings were provided to all intervention participants at DUG’s central office during gardening classes and other specified days (see Table 1). Participants could purchase additional seeds and seedlings if desired, and many gardens provided seeds to gardeners at no cost.

种子和种子在园艺课和其他指定的日子里，在达格中心办公室向所有干预参与者提供种子和幼苗（见表1）。如果需要，参与者可以购买额外的种子和幼苗，许多花园免费为园丁提供种子。

Alternative arrangements were made for participants who were not able to travel to the DUG office.3. Introductory gardening classesIntroductory gardening classes were conducted in-person in either English or Spanish on weekdays, evenings, and weekends to accommodate participants’ schedules. Control participants were offered classes the following year.

为无法前往达格办公室的参与者做出了替代安排。介绍性园艺课介绍性园艺课在工作日，晚上和周末以英语或西班牙语亲自进行，以适应参与者的时间表。第二年为对照组参与者提供了课程。

Attendance fees were covered by the study ($40 at the time of trial). Classes, approximately three hours in duration, included a lecture, print materials, and the opportunity to ask questions of MCGs.Among intervention participants, 45% reported attending introductory gardening classes at the beginning of the gardening season (Table 4).

这项研究支付了出席费（试验时为40美元）。课程大约持续三个小时，包括讲座、印刷材料以及向MCGs提问的机会。在干预参与者中，45%的人报告说在园艺季节开始时参加了园艺入门课程（表4）。

Of those who attended, 71% (n = 46) found the classes helpful for getting started in their gardens (Table 4). Several participants, however, felt the classes did not prepare them to garden, leading to feelings of insufficient gardening skills and knowledge (n = 6, 4%), as described below:.

在参加的人中，71%（n=46）发现这些课程有助于开始他们的花园（表4）。然而，一些参与者认为这些课程没有让他们做好园艺的准备，导致他们感到园艺技能和知识不足（n=6,4%），如下所述：。

“They [class instructors] did not go over what tools I should use or how I should get started in my plot. They told me what plants I should start planting and when, but they did not give me any specifics on how to weed or turn my soil and add compost. I was very confused about that.” (Participant 283).

“他们（课堂老师）没有讨论我应该使用什么工具，也没有讨论我应该如何开始种植。他们告诉我应该种植什么植物以及何时开始种植，但他们没有给我任何关于如何除草或翻土和添加堆肥的细节。我对此感到非常困惑。”（参与者283）。

4. Communication and social opportunities at the garden(a) Communication from garden leadershipGarden leaders, as volunteers, are provided leadership training and support from DUG, in addition to an annual garden leader symposium to foster an exchange among garden leaders and build leadership skills.

4、花园的沟通和社交机会（a）花园领导的沟通作为志愿者，花园领导接受了达格的领导培训和支持，此外还举办了一年一度的花园领导研讨会，以促进花园领导之间的交流并培养领导技能。

Garden leaders were an important bridge between DUG and study participants. Once study participants were assigned to gardens, they received garden-specific email and text messages and were invited to social events, including garden workdays.Participants were asked about the type and frequency of communication between leaders and gardeners.

花园领导者是达格和研究参与者之间的重要桥梁。一旦研究参与者被分配到花园，他们就会收到花园特有的电子邮件和短信，并被邀请参加社交活动，包括花园工作日。参与者被问及领导者和园丁之间沟通的类型和频率。

Gardeners reported adequate communication with garden leaders, with many participants reporting weekly or monthly communication (n = 65, 45%) and a smaller fraction reporting communication “once in a while” (n = 22, 15%). Only two participants (1%) reported never having communication with garden leaders.

园丁报告与园丁领导进行了充分的沟通，许多参与者报告每周或每月的沟通（n=65,45%），少数人报告“偶尔”沟通（n=22,15%）。只有两名参与者（1%）报告从未与花园领导沟通。

Some Spanish-speaking gardeners noted communication challenges with garden leaders who did not speak Spanish. Communication ranged from routine communication with gardeners to ad-hoc to address issues in the garden or to announce events.Most participants characterized garden leadership positively. Participants commonly described garden leaders as “sweet,” “friendly,” and “encouraging.” Nearly one-quarter of participants (n = 33, 23%) recalled receiving a garden orientation from the garden leader and found garden leaders to be “helpful” (n = 29, 20%).

一些会说西班牙语的园丁指出，与不会说西班牙语的园丁领导沟通存在挑战。沟通范围从与园丁的日常沟通到临时解决花园问题或宣布活动。大多数参与者对花园领导力持积极态度。参与者通常将花园领导者描述为“甜美”，“友好”和“令人鼓舞”。近四分之一的参与者（n=33,23%）回忆起接受花园领导者的花园定向，并发现花园领导者是“有帮助的”（n=29,20%）。

Responses to semi-structured questions revealed that a subset of participants (n = 18, 12%) described their garden leader as largely “absent” from the garden, noting that they rarely or never saw garden leaders at the garden, or received communication from leaders only at the beginning of the.

对半结构化问题的回答显示，一部分参与者（n=18,12%）描述他们的花园领导在很大程度上“缺席”花园，注意到他们很少或从未在花园看到花园领导，或者仅在开始时才收到领导的沟通。

“They [garden leaders] showed us around and had us sign all the paperwork, pointed out the plots that were available, and asked if we had any questions. They told us the rules and regulations. We were on our own after that. There were initially some days or times that the garden leaders were going to be there, but I haven't been able to go to those.

“他们（园长）带我们参观，让我们签署所有文件，指出可用的地块，并问我们是否有任何问题。他们告诉了我们规则和规定。之后我们就靠自己了。最初有几天或几次园长会去那里，但我没能去那里。

They are very friendly, helpful, and accessible. I have been able to ask them a question. I do my own research as well and look things up.” (Participant 264).

他们非常友好，乐于助人，容易接近。我已经能够问他们一个问题了。我也做自己的研究，并查阅资料。”（参与者264）。

(b) Events offered at the gardenWhile not required, many gardens hosted events such as orientations, workdays, gardening workshops, or potlucks. Just over half of participants (52%) confirmed that events were held at their garden. Participants who reported that their garden did not host events represented 16 community gardens (43% of community gardens included in the study).Enactment1.

（b） 花园提供的活动虽然不需要，但许多花园都会举办活动，如定向、工作日、园艺讲习班或聚餐。超过一半的参与者（52%）证实活动是在他们的花园举行的。报告他们的花园没有举办活动的参与者代表了16个社区花园（研究中包括43%的社区花园）。制定1。

Engagement with the community garden plot(a) Frequency and intensity of gardeningThe overwhelming majority of intervention participants (n = 116, 80%) reported doing some community gardening during their participation in CAPS. Of those 116 participants, 97 participants (84%) reported gardening for a full gardening season (May through October).

参与社区园地（a）园艺的频率和强度绝大多数干预参与者（n=116,80%）报告说在参与CAP期间进行了一些社区园艺。在这116名参与者中，97名参与者（84%）报告了整个园艺季节（5月至10月）的园艺。

Overall, the median time spent gardening was 90 min (range 0–840 min) per week during the gardening season. Most participants (78%) visited the garden at least twice per week and over half of participants (60%) reported spending at least 30 min at the garden per visit.(b) Gardening routineWhen asked about their gardening routine, nearly all participants described weeding and watering as part of their regular activities in the garden.

总体而言，在园艺季节，每周花在园艺上的平均时间为90分钟（范围0-840分钟）。大多数参与者（78%）每周至少参观两次花园，超过一半的参与者（60%）报告每次参观花园至少花费30分钟。（b） 园艺常规当被问及他们的园艺常规时，几乎所有参与者都将除草和浇水描述为他们在花园中常规活动的一部分。

Several participants (n = 24, 17%) described harvesting from their plots as a part of their routine. Some participants (n = 22, 15%) noted that they regularly cared for communal spaces in the garden in addition to their own plot. A few participants (n = 11, 8%) described socializing with other gardeners as a part of their routine in the garden and some (n = 9, 6%) mentioned helping other gardeners with their plots.

一些参与者（n=24,17%）描述了从他们的地块收获作为他们日常工作的一部分。一些参与者（n=22，15%）指出，除了他们自己的地块之外，他们还经常照顾花园中的公共空间。一些参与者（n=11,8%）描述了与其他园丁的社交是他们在花园中日常生活的一部分，一些参与者（n=9,6%）提到了帮助其他园丁处理他们的地块。

A few participants (n = 11, 8%) noted spending leisure time in the garden to enjoy the garden environment.(b) Planting and harvestingIntervention participants reported both planting and harvesting from their .

一些参与者（n=11,8%）注意到在花园里度过休闲时间以享受花园环境。（b） 种植和收获干预参与者报告了他们的种植和收获。

“We [the participant and other gardeners] loved sharing stories, sharing tips, and sharing produce. We would mostly talk about gardening because that was what we all had in common.” (Participant 264)

“我们（参与者和其他园丁）喜欢分享故事、分享技巧和农产品。我们主要谈论园艺，因为这是我们所有人的共同点。”（参与者264）

A subset of participants (n = 19, 13%) described a lack of social interaction with other gardeners, and some participants (n = 5, 3%) noted that there seemed to be little participation in their garden overall, and consequently, it was rare to encounter or interact with other community gardeners. Other participants in more active gardens noted feeling shy around other gardeners, not wanting to disturb others while gardening, feeling excluded from or intimidated by the established gardening community, or feeling like a newcomer.

一部分参与者（n=19,13%）描述了与其他园丁缺乏社交互动，一些参与者（n=5,3%）指出，他们的花园总体上似乎很少参与，因此，很少遇到其他社区园丁或与他们互动。其他更活跃花园的参与者注意到，在其他园丁面前感到害羞，不想在园艺时打扰他人，感觉被既定的园艺社区排斥或恐吓，或者感觉自己是新来的。

One participant described having little interaction with other gardeners:.

一位参与者描述说，与其他园丁的互动很少：。

“It was very rare for me to talk to any of the gardeners. I didn't feel like they were approachable. I didn't feel comfortable interacting with them, maybe it was a problem with me- I am not sure. Since I came in so late in the season, I wasn't acquainted with anyone.” (Participant 515)

“我很少与任何园丁交谈。我觉得他们不容易接近。我觉得与他们互动不舒服，也许这是我的问题-我不确定。因为我在这个季节来的太晚了，所以我不认识任何人。”（参与者515）

(b) Event attendanceOne third of participants (n = 48, 33%) reported attending garden events (Table 4). Most of these participants who attended garden events reported attending workdays (n = 21, 44%), with a smaller number of reporting attending potlucks (n = 5, 10%), classes held at their garden (n = 5, 10%), or multiple types of events (n = 6, 13%).

（b） 活动参与者三分之一的参与者（n=48，33%）报告参加了花园活动（表4）。参加花园活动的大多数参与者报告参加了工作日（n=21，44%），少数人报告参加了野炊（n=5，10%），在花园举办的课程（n=5，10%）或多种类型的活动（n=6，13%）。

Participants who did not attend events reported that the time of the events did not align with their schedule or that they did not hear about the events in time to attend.AcceptabilityParticipant discontinuationA total of 63 participants (22%) dropped out of the trial after randomization, well within our planned loss to follow up of 30%12, 36 participants from the intervention group (25%) and 27 participants from the control group (18%).

没有参加活动的参与者报告说，活动的时间与他们的时间表不一致，或者他们没有及时听到有关活动的消息。可接受性参与者中断随机分组后，共有63名参与者（22%）退出试验，在我们计划的30%随访范围内12名，干预组36名参与者（25%）和对照组27名参与者（18%）。

Causes of participant dropout included: did not accept randomization, chose to not continue, moved away, participation was too challenging, and reasons unknown13.Participant satisfaction with the interventionAlmost half of the intervention participants (48%) responded to exit survey questions about the acceptability of the intervention and their satisfaction with different components of the community gardening experience.

参与者辍学的原因包括：不接受随机化，选择不继续，搬走，参与太具挑战性，原因不明13。参与者对干预的满意度干预参与者中的一半（48%）回答了退出调查问题关于干预的可接受性及其对社区园艺体验不同组成部分的满意度。

Intervention participants who responded reported high overall satisfaction with the garden (89%) and high levels of satisfaction with the core components of the intervention, namely quality of the garden plot (84%), seeds and seedlings provided by the study (97%), gardening classes (76%), and opportunities to interact with other gardeners (73%) and with garden leadership (70%).

回应的干预参与者报告说，对花园的总体满意度很高（89%），对干预的核心组成部分也很满意，即园地质量（84%），研究提供的种子和幼苗（97%），园艺课（76%），以及与其他园丁（73%）和花园领导（70%）互动的机会。

Of those who responded, 97% were satisfied with water availability, 94% were satisfied with the tools provided, 80% were satisfied with the lighting in their garden, 94% were satisfied with garden .

在回答的人中，97%对水的可用性感到满意，94%对提供的工具感到满意，80%对花园的照明感到满意，94%对花园感到满意。

Data availability

数据可用性

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

本研究中使用和/或分析的数据集可根据合理要求从通讯作者处获得。

ReferencesHume, C., Grieger, J. A., Kalamkarian, A., D’Onise, K. & Smithers, L. G. Community gardens and their effects on diet, health, psychosocial and community outcomes: A systematic review. BMC Public Health 22, 1247 (2022).Article

参考休谟，C.，格里格，J.A.，卡拉姆卡里安，A.，D'Onise，K。＆Smithers，L.G。社区花园及其对饮食，健康，心理社会和社区结果的影响：系统评价。BMC公共卫生221247（2022）。文章

PubMed

PubMed

PubMed Central

公共医学中心

Google Scholar

谷歌学者

Alaimo, K., Beavers, A. W., Crawford, C., Snyder, E. H. & Litt, J. S. Amplifying health through community gardens: A framework for advancing multicomponent, behaviorally based neighborhood interventions. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 3, 302–312 (2016).Article

Alaimo，K.，Beavers，A.W.，Crawford，C.，Snyder，E.H。＆Litt，J.S。通过社区花园扩大健康：推进多组分，基于行为的社区干预的框架。货币。环境。健康代表3302-312（2016）。文章

PubMed

PubMed

Google Scholar

谷歌学者

Litt, J. S., Schmiege, S. J., Hale, J. W., Buchenau, M. & Sancar, F. Exploring ecological, emotional and social levers of self-rated health for urban gardeners and non-gardeners: A path analysis. Soc. Sci. Med. 144, 1–8 (2015).Article

Litt，J.S.，Schmiege，S.J.，Hale，J.W.，Buchenau，M。＆Sancar，F。探索城市园丁和非园丁自我评估健康的生态，情感和社会杠杆：路径分析。社会科学。医学144，1-8（2015）。文章

CAS

中科院

PubMed

PubMed

PubMed Central

公共医学中心

Google Scholar

谷歌学者

Bauer, U. E., Briss, P. A., Goodman, R. A. & Bowman, B. A. Prevention of chronic disease in the 21st century: elimination of the leading preventable causes of premature death and disability in the USA. Lancet 384, 45–52 (2014).Article

Bauer，U.E.，Briss，P.A.，Goodman，R.A。和Bowman，B.A。21世纪慢性病的预防：消除美国过早死亡和残疾的主要可预防原因。柳叶刀384，45-52（2014）。文章

PubMed

PubMed

Google Scholar

谷歌学者

Blair, C. K. et al. Southwest harvest for health: An adapted mentored vegetable gardening intervention for cancer survivors. Nutrients 13, 2319 (2021).Article

Blair，C.K.等人，《西南健康收获：癌症幸存者的适应性指导蔬菜园艺干预》。营养素132319（2021）。文章

CAS

中科院

PubMed

PubMed

PubMed Central

公共医学中心

Google Scholar

谷歌学者

Demark-Wahnefried, W. et al. Pilot randomized controlled trial of a home vegetable gardening intervention among older cancer survivors shows feasibility, satisfaction, and promise in improving vegetable and fruit consumption, reassurance of worth, and the trajectory of central adipos.

Demark Wahnefried，W.等人在老年癌症幸存者中进行家庭蔬菜园艺干预的试点随机对照试验显示，在改善蔬菜和水果消费，保证价值以及中枢脂肪的轨迹方面具有可行性，满意度和前景。

J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 118, 689–704 (2018).Article .

J、 阿卡德。营养。饮食。118689-704（2018）。文章。

PubMed

PubMed

PubMed Central

公共医学中心

Google Scholar

谷歌学者

Grier, K. et al. Feasibility of an experiential community garden and nutrition programme for youth living in public housing. Public Health Nutr. 18, 2759–2769 (2015).Article

Grier，K.等人，《居住在公共住房中的青少年体验式社区花园和营养计划的可行性》。公共卫生营养品。182759-2769（2015）。文章

PubMed

PubMed

PubMed Central

公共医学中心

Google Scholar

谷歌学者

Veldheer, S. et al. Growing healthy hearts: Gardening program feasibility in a hospital-based community garden. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 52, 958–963 (2020).Article

Veldheer，S.等人，《培育健康的心脏：基于医院的社区花园中园艺计划的可行性》。J、 营养。教育。行为。52958-963（2020）。文章

PubMed

PubMed

Google Scholar

谷歌学者

Heilmayr, D. & Friedman, H. S. Cultivating healthy trajectories: An experimental study of community gardening and health. J. Health Psychol. 25, 2418–2427 (2018).Article

Heilmayr，D.＆Friedman，H.S。培养健康轨迹：社区园艺与健康的实验研究。J、 健康心理学。252418-2427（2018）。文章

PubMed

PubMed

Google Scholar

谷歌学者

Moore, G. F. et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ (Online) 350 (2015).Oakley, A. et al. Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. BMJ 413–416 (2006).Litt, J. et al. Rationale and design for the community activation for prevention study (CAPS): A randomized controlled trial of community gardening.

Moore，G.F.等人，《复杂干预的过程评估：医学研究委员会指南》。BMJ（在线）350（2015）。Oakley，A.等人，《复杂干预随机对照试验的过程评估》。BMJ 413-416（2006）。Litt，J.等人，《社区激活预防研究（CAPS）的基本原理和设计：社区园艺的随机对照试验》。

Contemp. Clin. Trials 68, 72–78 (2018).Article .

康坦普。临床。试验68,72-78（2018）。文章。

CAS

中科院

PubMed

PubMed

PubMed Central

公共医学中心

Google Scholar

谷歌学者

Litt, J. et al. The effects of a community gardening intervention on diet, physical activity, and anthropometry outcomes: A two-arm, observer-blind, randomised controlled trial (CAPS trial). Lancet Planet. Health 1–13 (2023).Villalobos, A. et al. CAPS on the move: Crafting an approach to recruitment for a randomized controlled trial of community gardening.

社区园艺干预对饮食、身体活动和人体测量结果的影响：双臂、观察者盲、随机对照试验（CAPS试验）。柳叶刀星球。健康1-13（2023）。维拉洛博斯（Villalobos，A.）等人（CAPS on the move）：为社区园艺的随机对照试验制定招募方法。

Contemp. Clin. Trials Commun. 16, 100482 (2019).Article .

康坦普。临床。审判公社。16100482（2019）。文章。

CAS

中科院

PubMed

PubMed

PubMed Central

公共医学中心

Google Scholar

谷歌学者

Deci, E. & Ryan, R. Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness 756 (Guildford Press, 2017).

Deci，E。＆Ryan，R。自决理论：动机，发展和健康的基本心理需求756（吉尔福德出版社，2017）。

Google Scholar

谷歌学者

Bandura, A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory (Prentice Hall, 1986).

Bandura，A.《思想和行动的社会基础：社会认知理论》（Prentice Hall，1986）。

Google Scholar

谷歌学者

Bronfenbrenner, U. The Ecology of Human Development (Harvard University Press, 1979).Book

《人类发展的生态学》（哈佛大学出版社，1979年）。书籍

Google Scholar

谷歌学者

Stokols, D. Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion. Am. J. Health Promot. 10, 282–298 (1996).Article

Stokols，D。将社会生态学理论转化为社区健康促进指南。Am.J.健康促进。10282-298（1996）。文章

CAS

中科院

PubMed

PubMed

Google Scholar

谷歌学者

Comstock, N. et al. Neighborhood attachment and its correlates: Exploring neighborhood conditions, collective efficacy and gardening. J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 435–442 (2010).Article

Comstock，N.等人，《邻里依恋及其相关性：探索邻里条件、集体效能和园艺》。J、 环境。心理学。30435-442（2010）。文章

Google Scholar

谷歌学者

Hale, J. et al. Connecting food environments and health through the relational nature of aesthetics: Gaining insight through the community gardening experience. Soc. Sci. Med. 72, 1853–1863 (2011).Article

Hale，J.等人，《通过美学的关系性质将食物环境与健康联系起来：通过社区园艺经验获得洞察力》。社会科学。医学721853-1863（2011）。文章

PubMed

PubMed

PubMed Central

公共医学中心

Google Scholar

谷歌学者

Litt, J. S. et al. The influences of social involvement, neighborhood aesthetics and community garden participation on fruit and vegetable consumption. Am. J. Public Health 101, 1466–1473 (2011).Article

Litt，J.S.等人。社会参与、邻里美学和社区花园参与对水果和蔬菜消费的影响。《美国公共卫生杂志》1011466-1473（2011）。文章

PubMed

PubMed

PubMed Central

公共医学中心

Google Scholar

谷歌学者

Teig, E. et al. Collective efficacy in Denver, Colorado: Strengthening neighborhoods and health through community gardens. Health Place 15, 1115–1122 (2009).Article

Teig，E.等人，《科罗拉多州丹佛市的集体效能：通过社区花园加强社区和健康》。Health Place 151115–1122（2009）。文章

PubMed

PubMed

Google Scholar

谷歌学者

Shahsavari, H., Matourypour, P., Ghiyasvandian, S. & Nejad, M. R. G. Medical Research Council framework for development and evaluation of complex interventions: A comprehensive guidance. J. Educ. Health Promot. 9, 88 (2020).Article

Shahsavari，H.，Matourypour，P.，Ghiyasvandian，S.＆Nejad，M.R.G.医学研究委员会复杂干预措施开发和评估框架：综合指南。J、 教育。健康促进。9，88（2020）。文章

PubMed

PubMed

PubMed Central

公共医学中心

Google Scholar

谷歌学者

Pinnock, H. et al. Standards for reporting implementation studies (StaRI) statement. BMJ 356, 6795 (2017).Article

Pinnock，H.等人，《实施研究报告标准》（StaRI）声明。BMJ 3566795（2017）。文章

Google Scholar

谷歌学者

Saunders, R. P., Evans, M. H. & Joshi, P. Developing a process-evaluation plan for assessing health promotion program implementation: A how-to guide. Health Promot. Pract. 6, 134–147 (2005).Article

Saunders，R.P.，Evans，M.H。＆Joshi，P。制定评估健康促进计划实施的过程评估计划：操作指南。健康促进。实践。6134-147（2005）。文章

PubMed

PubMed

Google Scholar

谷歌学者

Krieger, N. et al. Geocoding and monitoring of U.S. socioeconomic inequalities in mortality and cancer incidence: Does the choice of area-based measure and geographic level matter? The Public Health Disparities Geocoding Project. Am. J. Epidemiol. 156, 471–482 (2006).Article

Krieger，N.等人，《美国死亡率和癌症发病率的社会经济不平等的地理编码和监测：基于区域的测量和地理水平的选择是否重要？公共卫生差异地理编码项目。美国流行病学杂志。156471-482（2006）。文章

Google Scholar

谷歌学者

U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Denver City, Colorado; Denver County, Colorado.Steckler, A. Process Evaluation for Public Health Interventions and Research: An Overview 1–23 (Jossey-Bass, 2002).

U、 美国人口普查局QuickFacts：科罗拉多州丹佛市；科罗拉多州丹佛县。Steckler，A.《公共卫生干预和研究的过程评估：概述1-23》（Jossey Bass，2002）。

Google Scholar

谷歌学者

Bellg, A. J. et al. Enhancing treatment fidelity in health behavior change studies: Best practices and recommendations from the NIH Behavior Change Consortium. Health Psychol. 23, 443–451 (2004).Article

Bellg，A.J.等人，《提高健康行为改变研究中的治疗保真度：NIH行为改变联盟的最佳实践和建议》。健康心理学。23443-451（2004）。文章

PubMed

PubMed

Google Scholar

谷歌学者

Lichstein, K. L., Riedel, B. W. & Grieve, R. Fair tests of clinical trials: A treatment implementation model. Adv. Behav. Res. Ther. 16, 1–29 (1994).Article

Lichstein，K.L.，Riedel，B.W。和Grieve，R。临床试验的公平测试：治疗实施模型。高级行为。Res.Ther。16，1-29（1994）。文章

Google Scholar

谷歌学者

Sekhon, M., Cartwright, M. & Francis, J. J. Acceptability of healthcare interventions: An overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework. BMC Health Serv. Res. 17, 88 (2017).Article

Sekhon，M.，Cartwright，M。和Francis，J。J。医疗干预的可接受性：理论框架的回顾和发展概述。BMC Health Serv。第17、88（2017）号决议。文章

PubMed

PubMed

PubMed Central

公共医学中心

Google Scholar

谷歌学者

Bowen, D. J. et al. How we design feasibility studies. Am. J. Prevent. Med. 36, 452–457 (2009).Article

Bowen，D.J.等人，《我们如何设计可行性研究》。Am.J.预防。医学36452-457（2009）。文章

Google Scholar

谷歌学者

StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 13 (College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC, 2013).U.S. Census Bureau. Quick Facts: Denver city, Colorado; Denver County, Colorado. Retrieved from (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/denvercitycolorado,denvercountycolorado/PST045221) on 24 August 2022 (2022).Kingsley, J.

StataCorp公司。Stata统计软件：第13版（德克萨斯州大学城：StataCorp LLC，2013）。U、 美国人口普查局。快速事实：科罗拉多州丹佛市；科罗拉多州丹佛县。检索自(https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/denvercitycolorado，denvercountycolorado/PST045221）于2022年8月24日（2022年）。金斯利，J。

et al. Housing and gardening: Developing a health equity-focused research agenda. Landsc. Urban Plan. 245, 105014 (2024).Article .

等人，《住房和园艺：制定以健康公平为重点的研究议程》。土地SC。城市规划。245105014（2024）。文章。

Google Scholar

谷歌学者

Sachs, A. et al. To me, it's just natural to be in the garden: A multi-site investigation of new community gardener motivation using self-determination theory. In Wellbeing, Space and Society. Vol. 100088 (2022).Blair, C. K. et al. Harvest for health gardening intervention feasibility study in cancer survivors.

Sachs，A。等人。对我来说，在花园里很自然：使用自决理论对新社区园丁动机进行多地点调查。幸福、空间和社会。第100088卷（2022年）。Blair，C.K.等人，《癌症幸存者健康园艺干预可行性研究收获》。

Acta Oncol. 52, 1110–1118 (2013).Article .

肿瘤学报。52, 1110-1118 (2013).第[UNK]条。

PubMed

PubMed

PubMed Central

公共医学中心

Google Scholar

谷歌学者

Holland, I. et al. Measuring nature contact: A narrative review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18, 4092 (2021).Article

Holland，I.等人，《测量自然接触：叙述性评论》。内景J.环境。公共卫生第184092号决议（2021年）。文章

PubMed

PubMed

PubMed Central

公共医学中心

Google Scholar

谷歌学者

Howarth, M., Brettle, A., Hardman, M. & Maden, M. What is the evidence for the impact of gardens and gardening on health and well-being: A scoping review and evidence-based logic model to guide healthcare strategy decision making on the use of gardening approaches as a social prescription.

Howarth，M.，Brettle，A.，Hardman，M。＆Maden，M。花园和园艺对健康和福祉的影响的证据是什么：范围界定审查和基于证据的逻辑模型，用于指导使用园艺方法作为社会处方的医疗保健战略决策。

BMJ Open 10, e036923 (2020).Article .

BMJ Open 10，e036923（2020）。文章

PubMed

PubMed

PubMed Central

公共医学中心

Google Scholar

谷歌学者

Download referencesAcknowledgementsThe authors warmly thank the participants whose commitment and dedication made this trial possible, the garden leaders who supported and believed in this study, and our partner, Denver Urban Gardens (DUG) and specifically, Mr. Michael Buchenau, former DUG Executive Director, who, for the past 15 years, has graciously collaborated with the University of Colorado to examine the health and social benefits of community gardening.

下载参考文献致谢作者热烈感谢参与者的承诺和奉献精神使这项试验成为可能，感谢支持和相信这项研究的花园领导者，以及我们的合作伙伴丹佛城市花园（DAG），特别是DAG前执行董事迈克尔·布切诺先生，他在过去15年中与科罗拉多大学慷慨合作，研究社区园艺的健康和社会效益。

We are grateful for the contributions of our CAPS advisory committee: Betsy Johnson, Melanie Morrison, Sarah Muntz, Lara Fahnestock, Michael Buchenau, Linda Appel Lipsius, and Laura Gerlick, who informed various aspects of the process evaluation.FundingThis study was funded by the Research Scholars Health Equity Grant (130091-RSG-16-169-01-CPPB) from the American Cancer Society.

我们感谢CAPS咨询委员会的贡献：Betsy Johnson，Melanie Morrison，Sarah Muntz，Lara Fahnestock，Michael Buchenau，Linda Appel Lipsius和Laura Gerlick，他们告知了流程评估的各个方面。资助该研究由美国癌症协会的研究学者健康公平基金（130091-RSG-16-169-01-CPPB）资助。

Additional support was provided by the University of Colorado Cancer Centre and the University of Colorado Boulder. KA received additional support from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Michigan AgBioResearch Hatch projects MICL02410 and MICL02711.Author informationAuthors and AffiliationsDepartment of Environmental Studies, University of Colorado Boulder, 4001 Discovery Drive, Boulder, CO, 80303, USAEva Coringrato, Angel Villalobos, Hannah Buchenau, Erin Decker, Pallas Quist & Jill S.

科罗拉多大学癌症中心和科罗拉多大学博尔德分校提供了额外的支持。KA获得了美国农业部国家粮食和农业研究所、密歇根州AGBIorearch孵化项目MICL02410和MICL02711的额外支持。作者信息作者和附属机构科罗拉多大学博尔德分校环境研究系，4001 Discovery Drive，博尔德，CO，80303，USAEva Coringrato，Angel Villalobos，Hannah Buchenau，Erin Decker，Pallas Quist＆Jill S。

LittDepartment of Food Science and Human Nutrition, G. Malcolm Trout Building, Room 208C, Michigan State University, 469 Wilson Road, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USAKatherine AlaimoDepartment of Community and Behavioural Health, Colorado School of Public Health, Mail Stop B-119, Room W 3140, 13001 East 17th Place, Aurora, CO, 80045, USAJenn A.

美国密歇根州立大学食品科学与人类营养系，G.Malcolm Trout Building，208C室，美国密歇根州东兰辛威尔逊路469号，48824，凯瑟琳·阿莱莫科罗拉多公共卫生学院社区与行为健康系，邮箱B-119，W 3140室，13001 East 17th Place，Aurora，CO，80045，USAJenn A。

LeifermanDenver Urban Gardens, 1031 33rd Street, Suite 100, Denver, CO, 80205, USALa.

LeifermanDenver城市花园，1031 33rd Street，Suite 100，Denver，CO，80205，USALa。

PubMed Google ScholarKatherine AlaimoView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in

PubMed Google ScholarKatherine AlaimoView作者出版物您也可以在

PubMed Google ScholarJenn A. LeifermanView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in

PubMed Google ScholarJenn A.LeifermanView作者出版物您也可以在

PubMed Google ScholarAngel VillalobosView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in

PubMed Google ScholarAngel VillalobosView作者出版物您也可以在

PubMed Google ScholarHannah BuchenauView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in

PubMed Google ScholarHannah BuchenauView作者出版物您也可以在

PubMed Google ScholarErin DeckerView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in

PubMed Google ScholarErin DeckerView作者出版物您也可以在

PubMed Google ScholarLara FahnestockView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in

PubMed Google ScholarLara FahnestockView作者出版物您也可以在

PubMed Google ScholarPallas QuistView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in

PubMed Google ScholarPallas QuistView作者出版物您也可以在

PubMed Google ScholarJill S. LittView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in

PubMed Google ScholarJill S.LittView作者出版物您也可以在

PubMed Google ScholarContributionsJSL and KA conceived of the study. JSL, KA, JAL, EC generated the hypotheses. JAL, JSL, KA, AV and EC designed the process evaluation, interpreted the data, and reviewed the manuscript. EC, KA, and JSL wrote the first draft of the manuscript.

PubMed Google ScholarContributionsJSL和KA构思了这项研究。JSL，KA，JAL，EC产生了这些假设。JAL，JSL，KA，AV和EC设计了过程评估，解释了数据，并审阅了手稿。EC，KA和JSL撰写了手稿的初稿。

EC AV, ED, HB, LF, PQ collected, cleaned, and processed the process evaluation data and EC conducted data analysis and statistical analysis, with guidance from JSL, KA, JAL and additional support from AV, HB, ED, LF, and PQ. All authors contributed to the preparation of the manuscript through synthesis of the data, team discussions, and detailed reviews.

EC AV，ED，HB，LF，PQ收集，清理和处理过程评估数据，EC在JSL，KA，JAL的指导下以及AV，HB，ED，LF和PQ的额外支持下进行数据分析和统计分析。所有作者都通过综合数据，团队讨论和详细评论为稿件的准备做出了贡献。

All authors read and approved the final manuscript.Corresponding authorCorrespondence to.

所有作者都阅读并批准了最终稿件。对应作者对应。

Jill S. Litt.Ethics declarations

吉尔·S·利特《道德宣言》

Competing interests

相互竞争的利益

The authors declare no competing interests.

作者声明没有利益冲突。

Additional informationPublisher's noteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.Supplementary InformationSupplementary Information 1.Supplementary Information 2.Supplementary Information 3.Rights and permissions

Additional informationPublisher的noteSpringer Nature在已发布地图和机构隶属关系中的管辖权主张方面保持中立。补充信息补充信息1。补充信息2。补充信息3。权利和权限

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.

开放获取本文是根据知识共享署名4.0国际许可证授权的，该许可证允许以任何媒体或格式使用，共享，改编，分发和复制，只要您对原始作者和来源给予适当的信任，提供知识共享许可证的链接，并指出是否进行了更改。

The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

本文中的图像或其他第三方材料包含在文章的知识共享许可中，除非在材料的信用额度中另有说明。如果材料未包含在文章的知识共享许可中，并且您的预期用途不受法律法规的许可或超出许可用途，则您需要直接获得版权所有者的许可。

To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/..

要查看此许可证的副本，请访问http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/..

Reprints and permissionsAbout this articleCite this articleCoringrato, E., Alaimo, K., Leiferman, J.A. et al. A process evaluation of a randomized-controlled trial of community gardening to improve health behaviors and reduce stress and anxiety.

转载和许可本文引用本文Coringrato，E.，Alaimo，K.，Leiferman，J.A。等人对社区园艺随机对照试验的过程评估，以改善健康行为，减轻压力和焦虑。

Sci Rep 14, 13620 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-63889-wDownload citationReceived: 14 December 2023Accepted: 03 June 2024Published: 13 June 2024DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-63889-wShare this articleAnyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:Get shareable linkSorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.Copy to clipboard.

科学报告1413620（2024）。https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-63889-wDownload引文接收日期：2023年12月14日接收日期：2024年6月3日发布日期：2024年6月13日OI：https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-63889-wShare本文与您共享以下链接的任何人都可以阅读此内容：获取可共享链接对不起，本文目前没有可共享的链接。复制到剪贴板。

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

由Springer Nature SharedIt内容共享计划提供

CommentsBy submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

评论通过提交评论，您同意遵守我们的条款和社区指南。如果您发现有虐待行为或不符合我们的条款或准则，请将其标记为不合适。