Effects of Horticultural Activities on Mild to Moderate Depression Symptoms: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives This study was designed to evaluate the effect of participating in horticultural activities on changes in the severity of depression symptoms in adults with mild-to-moderate depression symptoms. Methods In this non-blinded, randomized controlled trial, 102 eligible participants were assigned randomly to the experimental and control groups (51 members each). The inclusion criteria were as follows: age of 18 years or more, mild-to-moderate depression symptoms, and willingness to participate in the study. However, the exclusion criteria were physical or mental diseases limiting horticultural activities and using antidepressants. Both groups received educational worksheets, including behavioral activation, daily activity schedules, breathing training, and relaxation instructions. Moreover, the experimental group participated in weekly three-hour horticultural program sessions for six weeks. The severity of depression symptoms was then appraised at baseline, at the end of the intervention, and four weeks after the end of the intervention through the Beck depression inventory-II (BDI-II). The repeated-measures ANOVA was used for data analysis. Results The results revealed that the mean BDI-II scores in the horticultural group declined by 5.68 (P=0.001) and 2.32 (P=0.016) points more than the control group at the end of the intervention and four weeks later, respectively. Conclusion This study indicated that horticultural activity might mitigate the severity of depression symptoms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".