A home-based mentored vegetable gardening intervention demonstrates feasibility and improvements in physical activity and performance among breast cancer survivors
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The current study assessed the feasibility of a mentored home‐based vegetable gardening intervention and examined changes in health‐related outcomes among breast cancer survivors (BCS). METHODS: BCS were randomized to either a year‐long vegetable gardening intervention to begin immediately or a wait‐list control. Master Gardeners mentored participants in planning, planting, and maintaining 3 seasonal gardens over the course of 1 year. Participant accrual, retention, and satisfaction rates of ≥80% served as feasibility (primary outcome) benchmarks. Secondary outcomes (ie, vegetable consumption, physical activity, performance and function, anthropometrics, biomarkers, and health‐related quality of life) were collected at baseline and post‐intervention (1‐year follow‐up) using subjective and objective measures. RESULTS: The trial surpassed all feasibility benchmarks at 82% of targeted accrual, 95% retention, and 100% satisfaction (ie, experience ratings of “good to excellent” and willingness to “do it again”). Compared with the controls, intervention participants reported significantly greater improvements in moderate physical activity (+14 vs ‐17 minutes/week) and demonstrated improvements in the 2‐Minute Step Test (+22 vs + 10 steps), and Arm Curl (+2.7 vs + 0.1 repetitions) ( P values < .05). A trend toward improved vegetable consumption was observed (+0.9 vs + 0.2 servings/day; P = .06). Approximately 86% of participants were continuing to garden at the 2‐year follow‐up. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study suggest that a mentored, home‐based vegetable gardening intervention is feasible and offers an integrative and durable approach with which to improve health behaviors and outcomes among BCS. Harvest for Health led to the establishment of a group of trained Master Gardeners and gave rise to local and global community‐based programs. Larger studies are needed to confirm the results presented herein and to define applicability across broader populations of survivors.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Several positive outcomes were reported including social skills, behaviours and networks; general mental well-being, such as stress reduction, reduced anxiety and depression.
“Several positive outcomes were reported including social: involving skills, behaviours and networks; general mental well-being, such as stress reduction,35 94 reduced anxiety and depression.28 60 65”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 78
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [14]Cutillo A Rathore N Reynolds N A Literature Review of Nature-Based Therapy and its Application in Cancer Care Journal of Therapeutic Horticulture 2015 25 1
- Authors
- Bail, J. R., Frugé, A. D., Cases, M. G., De Los Santos, J. F., Locher, J. L., Smith, K. P., Cantor, A. B., Cohen, H. J., & Demark‐Wahnefried, W.
- Affiliations
- University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
- Auburn University (US)
- Stanford Medicine (US)
- Department of Radiation Oncology University of Alabama at Birmingham Birmingham Alabama
- Auburn University System (US)
- Duke University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bail, Jennifer R.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Cancer
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-06-22
- Volume
- 124
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 3427-3435
- ISSN
- 0008-543X (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0142
- PMC
- PMC6108896
- OpenAlex
- W2809053099
- Cited by
- 78
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 2.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Cancer (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Cancer Institute (R25 CA047888, 5R25 CA76023)
- National Institutes of Health (K07AG043588)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Urban Agriculture and Sustainability
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Diverse Educational Innovations Studies
- Keywords
- breast cancer survivors, vegetable gardening, home-based intervention, Master Gardeners, physical activity, physical function, vegetable consumption, health-related quality of life, community health promotion, intervention feasibility
- MeSH terms
- Mentoring, Cancer Survivors, Physical Functional Performance, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Breast Neoplasms, Feasibility Studies, Female, Home Care Services, Humans, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Quality of Life, Vegetables, Health Behavior, Exercise, Gardening
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review