Access to Urban Woodlands Linked with Lower Use of Antidepressants
e360.yale.edu63 points by speckx 7 hours ago
63 points by speckx 7 hours ago
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5...
The study, linked to from the article.
> Findings A total of 129 335 adults were included in the final sample. In the cross-sectional, between-individual analysis, we observed a greater risk (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1·10 [95% CI 1·03–1·20] p<0·05) of antidepressant prescription for those living within 800 m (approximately 10-min walk) of an improved woodland compared with those living further away, but no significant difference in the risk of anxiolytic prescription. In the longitudinal, within-individual analysis, we observed lower prescription use for antidepressants (aOR 0·90 [95% CI 0·87–0·93] p<0·01) and anxiolytics (aOR 0·94 [0·90–0·99] p<0·01) during periods spent living within 800 m of an improved woodland when compared with periods spent living beyond 800 m of an improved woodland.
My catchprase as of late: Everything is pulmonary.
Apropos of nothing.
There's a strange contradiction in the findings, even just those in the abstract. When they look across individuals and try to predict antidepressant use based on exposure to woodlands, they find higher use among those who live closer to woodlands. It's only when they look at individual trajectories that they see reduced antidepressant use lining up with periods where they lived closer to woodlands.
It's almost like the same type of people who use antidepressants also like to live near woodlands. And they get depressed when they don't live near woodlands.
Could be that woodlands grow better in areas with more rain and thus less sun and thus more cases of seasonal depression?
In the abstract they argue that this is because the woodland improvement program located woods in socioeconomically deprived areas. But in general they shouldn't be making any causal claims with observational data like this. It's a frequent problem that popular press takes a study and reframes an association as causation for their story.
I mean, anecdata, but after staring at a monitor from a chair all day, it really does my heart and brain good to go for a walk outside in my local preserve. I notice a big difference when I can't go for whatever reason (usually weather related). The preserve is quiet and peaceful in ways the local street is not.
But moving to within some distance doesn't mean they went walking there. I'm not sure how valid this study is. I think we've already done studies regarding sunlight exposure and just getting outside being good for you (assuming your environment is not bad). So was it just being outside made them feel better, and having the paths and whatnot made it more likely that they would go for a walk? Or even maybe just more likely that they take breaks? I know I'm terrible at taking breaks.
There's a controlled experiments that did show a pretty significant benefit to being outside in a forest vs. in an urban environment. The Japan one on forest bathing from Chiba University saw a 12.4% decrease in cortisol, 5.8% decrease in pulse rate and lower blood pressure for the forest cohort vs. the urban cohort under identical physical exertion parameters.
There was also one I found from back in 1984 where patients in a hospital that had a view of trees having a shorter stay vs. the group with the view of a brick wall, although not entirely sure that one was robust enough to draw any real conclusions on if view matters.
Just going outside in daylight in general should get you most of the benefits (in the right season, depending on where you live. Where I am in the PNW, midday light in the winter isn't even strong enough to trigger a lot of the benefits), so if your only option is to go for a walk outside on the sidewalk then do so, but there are even more positive benefits to be gained by being in nature, outside of an urban environment.
With the property values in Palo Alto, I almost expect a dude funded this study, just to boost a property value by a few million. Eg, one near Standford Hills or whatever.
(it does feel nice to walk in nature though)
There’s a general benefit to the SF Bay Area outside Palo Alto as each municipality, county, state, federal and open space organizations like the Midpeninsula Open Space District have been maintaining and increasing public parks under their respective jurisdictions open to most all, and free to non drivers. Only my personal experience but it’s a sharp contrast to Texas where 95 percent of land is privately owned and access to open space is much more limited by comparison. I had a few favorite parks in Texas and new ones since I left 30 years ago are close to nil - there’s still a bit extra you can pay the owner for access.
> A study from Scotland
This is not a snipe, please go outside. Take some deep breaths, be around some flora, and fauna. This kind of cynical non-sequitur tells me you're looking for something to be frustrated at.