Finding the Third Space through Gardening: Strengthening Relationship Mutuality and Lowering Stress in the Caregiver and Care Recipient who has a Disabling Injury or Illness through Gardening1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is strong evidence that illustrates the health benefits of gardening. However, gardening to improve mutuality and caregiver strain and health has not been studied. Mutuality is defined as shared, reciprocal experience that strengthens dyadic relationships aiming to achieve optimal health, mitigate adverse effects, and improve psychological and over-all well-being. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between gardening and mutuality in care recipients (CR) with a sudden disabling condition, and mutuality, caregiver health and strain in caregivers (CG) for CR-CG dyads after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation. A mixed methods, quasi-experimental study of 90-day duration (n=63 dyads) received the intervention of 1) gardening evaluation 2) teaching adaptive skills, and 3) providing take-home adaptive gardening equipment and supplies, and 4) six visits from a Master Gardener after discharge to home. The pre-post quantitative results revealed 1) CR mutuality decreased, though was higher than a published benchmark, 2) CG mutuality was higher than the published comparison, 3) the CR reported higher mutuality than the caregivers, 4) caregiver strain was 14% lower (favorable) compared to the 2023 annualized facility 90-day follow up data (historical comparison) 5) CG health decreased, though study participants reported 16% better health than the historical comparison, 6) study participants reported 6% better physical health than the historical comparison, and 7) study participants reported 20% better mental health than the historical comparison. The qualitative themes revealed that 1) gardening activities created a sense of CR/CG mutuality, 2) assisted progress in recovery and provided motivation, 3) allowed growing/eating healthy food, and 4) adaptive tools contributed to success. Gardening provided a positive impact on persons with sudden disabling events and their caregivers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".