Strengthening equity in gardening initiatives for children and youth: a rapid review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gardening initiatives may help address modifiable risk factors for cancer and chronic disease among children and youth by fostering more supportive and equitable environments for health. However, the extent to which these initiatives have been intentionally designed to address the social determinants of health and promote health equity remains unclear. The purpose of this review is to identify whether equity-related factors have been considered in gardening initiatives for children and youth, and to explore any reported equity-related effects. METHODS: A rapid review was conducted in March 2024 across multiple electronic databases. Peer-reviewed studies from the past ten years focusing on gardening initiatives in schools, daycares, or community settings within high-income countries were included. Articles underwent dual screening, and one reviewer independently conducted quality appraisal. Equity-related data were extracted using the PROGRESS-Plus framework and synthesized narratively. RESULTS: Studies most frequently incorporated social capital, age/grade level, and socioeconomic status in gardening initiatives. Social capital was commonly associated with improved social connections and relationships among children and their parents, peers, and teachers. It was also linked to the transfer of food-related knowledge and skills to the home environment and contributed to the perceived success and sustainability of initiatives. These outcomes are relevant to reducing modifiable risk factors for cancer and chronic disease. However, barriers such as transportation and time constraints limited parent involvement. Few studies systematically evaluated outcomes or impacts in relation to equity-related factors. CONCLUSIONS: Gardening initiatives that foster social capital - through engagement with parents, peers, and family members, and school-community partnerships - may support positive health-related outcomes for children and youth, including those relevant to cancer and chronic disease prevention. However, to enhance their potential to reduce inequities in health outcomes, these initiatives should be developed, implemented, and evaluated with explicit attention to equity-related factors. Rigorous, equity-focused evaluation is needed to assess the extent and nature of equity-related effects and to strengthen the evidence base for gardening as a strategy to reduce disparities in cancer and chronic disease risk among children and youth. TRIAL REGISTRATION: N/A.
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 | 0.023 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".