Best evidence statement (BESt). Horticultural therapy for children and adolescents in residential treatment for mental health.
General
Guideline Title
Best evidence statement (BESt). Horticultural therapy for children and adolescents in residential treatment for mental health.
Bibliographic Source(s)
- Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. Best evidence statement (BESt). Horticultural therapy for children and adolescents in residential treatment for mental health. Cincinnati (OH): Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; 2013 Feb 19. 5 p. [5 references]
Guideline Status
This is the current release of the guideline.
Recommendations
Major Recommendations
The strength of the recommendation (strongly recommended, recommended, or no recommendation) and the quality of the evidence (1a‒5b) are defined at the end of the “Major Recommendations” field.
- It is recommended that horticultural therapy be provided for children and adolescents with mental health diagnosis to decrease depression (Gonzalez et al., 2011 [3b]; Gonzalez et al., 2010 [4a]; Cassidy, 1996 [4b]) and increase self-esteem (Local Consensus [5]).
- There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation regarding the effects of horticultural therapy on aggression in children with mental health diagnosis.
Note : Horticulture Therapy does not change or decrease active aggressive episodes. Children display fewer aggressive episodes while in horticulture therapy.
Definitions:
Table of Evidence Levels
Quality Level | Definition |
---|---|
1a† or 1b† | Systematic review, meta-analysis, or meta-synthesis of multiple studies |
2a or 2b | Best study design for domain |
3a or 3b | Fair study design for domain |
4a or 4b | Weak study design for domain |
5a or 5b | General review, expert opinion, case report, consensus report, or guideline |
5 | Local Consensus |
†a = good quality study; b = lesser quality study
Table of Recommendation Strength
Strength | Definition |
---|---|
It is strongly recommended that…
It is strongly recommended that… not… |
When the dimensions for judging the strength of the evidence are applied, there is high support that benefits clearly outweigh risks and burdens. (or visa-versa for negative recommendations) |
It is recommended that…
It is recommended that… not… |
When the dimensions for judging the strength of the evidence are applied, there is moderate support that benefits are closely balanced with risks and burdens. |
There is insufficient evidence and a lack of consensus to make a recommendation… |
Note : See the original guideline document for the dimensions used for judging the strength of the recommendation.
Clinical Algorithm(s)
None provided
Scope
Disease/Condition(s)
Mental health disorders
Guideline Category
- Management
- Treatment
Clinical Specialty
- Family Practice
- Internal Medicine
- Pediatrics
- Psychiatry
- Psychology
Intended Users
- Advanced Practice Nurses
- Nurses
- Physician Assistants
- Physicians
- Psychologists/Non-physician Behavioral Health Clinicians
Guideline Objective(s)
To evaluate, among children and adolescents ages 8-18 years with mental health diagnosis, if participation in horticultural therapy compared to no participation in horticultural therapy decreases aggression and depression and increases self-esteem
Target Population
Children and adolescents, 8-18 years of age who are diagnosed with a mental health disorder; in residential treatment at a mental health facility
Note : Children and adolescent, 8-18 years of age in residential treatment at a mental health facility; who do not meet established criteria for on grounds activities are excluded from these recommendations.
Interventions and Practices Considered
Horticultural therapy
Note : The American Horticultural Therapy Association (AHTA) defines Horticultural Therapy as the engagement of a client in horticultural activities facilitated by a trained therapist to achieve specific and documented treatment goals.
Major Outcomes Considered
- Aggression and aggressive episodes
- Depression
- Self-esteem
- Patient and family satisfaction
Methodology
Methods Used to Collect/Select the Evidence
- Searches of Electronic Databases
Description of Methods Used to Collect/Select the Evidence
Search Strategy
- Databases : Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library
- Search Terms : Depression, Horticultural Therapy, Mental Health, Psychiatry, horticulture, children, residential treatment, long-term, mental health treatment, activities, self-esteem, aggression, leisure activities and gardening.
- Limits, Filters, Search Dates : 1987-2012 English
- Date last search done : August 17, 2012
Number of Source Documents
Not stated
Methods Used to Assess the Quality and Strength of the Evidence
- Weighting According to a Rating Scheme (Scheme Given)
Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Evidence
Table of Evidence Levels
Quality Level | Definition |
---|---|
1a† or 1b† | Systematic review, meta-analysis, or meta-synthesis of multiple studies |
2a or 2b | Best study design for domain |
3a or 3b | Fair study design for domain |
4a or 4b | Weak study design for domain |
5a or 5b | General review, expert opinion, case report, consensus report, or guideline |
5 | Local Consensus |
†a = good quality study; b = lesser quality study
Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence
- Systematic Review
Description of the Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence
Not stated
Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations
- Expert Consensus
Description of Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations
Not stated
Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Recommendations
Table of Recommendation Strength
Strength | Definition |
---|---|
It is strongly recommended that… It is strongly recommended that… not… | When the dimensions for judging the strength of the evidence are applied, there is high support that benefits clearly outweigh risks and burdens. (or visa-versa for negative recommendations) |
It is recommended that… It is recommended that… not… | When the dimensions for judging the strength of the evidence are applied, there is moderate support that benefits are closely balanced with risks and burdens. |
There is insufficient evidence and a lack of consensus to make a recommendation… |
Note : See the original guideline document for the dimensions used for judging the strength of the recommendation.
Cost Analysis
A formal cost analysis was not performed and published cost analyses were not reviewed.
Method of Guideline Validation
- Peer Review
Description of Method of Guideline Validation
This Best Evidence Statement has been reviewed against quality criteria by two independent reviewers from the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) Evidence Collaboration.
Evidence Supporting the Recommendations
References Supporting the Recommendations
- Cassidy T. All work and no play: a focus on leisure time as a means for promoting health. Council Psychol Q. 1996;9(1):77-90.
- Gonzalez MT, Hartig T, Patil GG, Martinsen EW, Kirkevold M. A prospective study of group cohesiveness in therapeutic horticulture for clinical depression. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2011 Apr;20(2):119-29. PubMed
- Gonzalez MT, Hartig T, Patil GG, Martinsen EW, Kirkevold M. Therapeutic horticulture in clinical depression: a prospective study of active components. J Adv Nurs. 2010 Sep;66(9):2002-13. PubMed
Type of Evidence Supporting the Recommendations
The type of supporting evidence is identified and graded for each recommendation (see the “Major Recommendations” field).
Benefits/Harms of Implementing the Guideline Recommendations
Potential Benefits
- Decrease aggression and depression
- Increase self-esteem
Potential Harms
Not stated
Qualifying Statements
Qualifying Statements
This Best Evidence Statement addresses only key points of care for the target population; it is not intended to be a comprehensive practice guideline. These recommendations result from review of literature and practices current at the time of their formulation. This Best Evidence Statement does not preclude using care modalities proven efficacious in studies published subsequent to the current revision of this document. This document is not intended to impose standards of care preventing selective variances from the recommendations to meet the specific and unique requirements of individual patients. Adherence to this Statement is voluntary. The clinician in light of the individual circumstances presented by the patient must make the ultimate judgment regarding the priority of any specific procedure.
Implementation of the Guideline
Description of Implementation Strategy
Applicability Issues
- There are potential safety concerns when engaging in outside activities with children and adolescents in residential treatment. Client’s history of high risk behavior and risk of elopement should be assessed prior to participation.
- An important element in this process is properly identifying clients for outside activities by utilizing residential psychiatry resources, such as an On Grounds Activity Planning Decision Tree.
- A formalized procedure should be used to evaluate client’s interest, attitude, conflicting behaviors, aggression and mental status, such as an Elopement Risk Assessment.
- Client and staff safety should be considered by providing adequate staffing in accordance to client needs and risk assessment.
- Weather can also be a factor for outside activities.
- Available resources and supplies can also be a barrier for effective horticultural therapy programs, such as inadequate gardening and activity materials and space. Adequate supplies aid in fascination and enhance clients’ interest, which may increase their attention to task and eliminate distractive behaviors.
- Horticultural Therapy can be a labor and cost intense program, funding may be an issue. Development and continuation maybe funded by donations and or grant funding.
Implementation Tools
- Audit Criteria/Indicators
Institute of Medicine (IOM) National Healthcare Quality Report Categories
IOM Care Need
- Getting Better
- Living with Illness
IOM Domain
- Effectiveness
- Patient-centeredness
Identifying Information and Availability
Bibliographic Source(s)
- Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. Best evidence statement (BESt). Horticultural therapy for children and adolescents in residential treatment for mental health. Cincinnati (OH): Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; 2013 Feb 19. 5 p. [5 references]
Adaptation
Not applicable: The guideline was not adapted from another source.
Date Released
2013 Feb 19
Guideline Developer(s)
- Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center - Hospital/Medical Center
Source(s) of Funding
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
Guideline Committee
Not stated
Composition of Group That Authored the Guideline
Team Leader/Author : Tyra Warner, BS, CTRS, Division of OT/PT/TR in Psychiatry, TRII
Ad hoc Members : Margie Hay, Certificate in Horticultural Therapy, Certified Landscape Technician, Master Gardner, Gardner II Division of Psychiatry
Senior Clinical Director : Rebecca D. Reder OTD, OTR/L, Division of Occupational Therapy and Physical Therapy
Support/Consultant : Mary Ellen Meier MSN, RN, CPN; Center for Professional Excellence and Integration
Ad hoc Advisors : Matt Schwendeman MHSA, OTR/L, Division of OT/PT/TR in Psychiatry; Mary Gilene, MBA, Division of Occupational Therapy and Physical Therapy
Financial Disclosures/Conflicts of Interest
Conflict of interest declaration forms are filed with the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center Evidence-based Decision Making (CCHMC EBDM) group. No financial or intellectual conflicts of interest were found.
Guideline Status
This is the current release of the guideline.
Guideline Availability
Available from the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Web site.
Availability of Companion Documents
The following are available:
- Judging the strength of a recommendation. Cincinnati (OH): Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; 2008 Jan. 1 p. Available from the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
- Grading a body of evidence to answer a clinical question. Cincinnati (OH): Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; 1 p.
- Table of evidence levels. Cincinnati (OH): Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; 2008 Feb 29. 1 p. Available from the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
In addition, suggested process or outcome measures are available in the original guideline document.
Patient Resources
None available
NGC Status
This NGC summary was completed by ECRI Institute on May 22, 2013.
Copyright Statement
This NGC summary is based on the original full-text guideline, which is subject to the following copyright restrictions:
Copies of this Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) Best Evidence Statement (BESt) are available online and may be distributed by any organization for the global purpose of improving child health outcomes. Examples of approved uses of the BESt include the following:
- Copies may be provided to anyone involved in the organization’s process for developing and implementing evidence based care.
- Hyperlinks to the CCHMC website may be placed on the organization’s website.
- The BESt may be adopted or adapted for use within the organization, provided that CCHMC receives appropriate attribution on all written or electronic documents.
- Copies may be provided to patients and the clinicians who manage their care.
Notification of CCHMC at EBDMInfo@cchmc.org for any BESt adopted, adapted, implemented or hyperlinked by the organization is appreciated.
Disclaimer
NGC Disclaimer
The National Guideline Clearinghouse™ (NGC) does not develop, produce, approve, or endorse the guidelines represented on this site.
All guidelines summarized by NGC and hosted on our site are produced under the auspices of medical specialty societies, relevant professional associations, public or private organizations, other government agencies, health care organizations or plans, and similar entities.
Guidelines represented on the NGC Web site are submitted by guideline developers, and are screened solely to determine that they meet the NGC Inclusion Criteria.
NGC, AHRQ, and its contractor ECRI Institute make no warranties concerning the content or clinical efficacy or effectiveness of the clinical practice guidelines and related materials represented on this site. Moreover, the views and opinions of developers or authors of guidelines represented on this site do not necessarily state or reflect those of NGC, AHRQ, or its contractor ECRI Institute, and inclusion or hosting of guidelines in NGC may not be used for advertising or commercial endorsement purposes.
Readers with questions regarding guideline content are directed to contact the guideline developer.