Cited by 107Physical Activity and HealthUrban Agriculture and SustainabilityOccupational Therapy Practice and Research

Physical and psychological health conditions of older adults classified as gardeners or nongardeners

Open access
Park, Sin-Ae, Shoemaker, Candice A., Haub, Mark D.·2009·HortScience

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the physical and psychological health conditions and leisure-time activities, particularly physical activities (PAs), of older gardeners and nongardeners. Fifty-three older adults were recruited from the community of Manhattan, KS. Three groups were classified based on results from the Community Healthy Activities Model Program for Seniors questionnaire: active gardeners (n = 11) classified as gardeners that met the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) PA recommendation through gardening; gardeners (n = 14) classified as gardeners that did not meet the CDC's PA recommendation through gardening; and nongardeners (n = 28). Overall physical and mental health conditions were determined with the Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36), hand function (hand strength and pinch force) was determined by dynamometers, and bone mineral density (BMD) was determined by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Active gardeners were significantly different from gardeners and nongardeners in physical health ( P ≤ 0.05) on SF-36. There were no differences in mental health among the three groups, but all groups had scores higher than the U.S. general population. Active gardeners + gardeners had greater hand strength and pinch force than nongardeners. There was no difference in BMD among the groups, but all subjects had higher scores than the standard BMD value for their age. The only significant difference of caloric expenditure in leisure-time PAs among the groups was gardening ( P < 0.001). In conclusion, gardening can be a useful strategy to meet the CDC's PA recommendation. In addition to the health benefits linked to regular PA, this study showed that gardening promotes hand strength, pinch force, and overall physical health.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.21273/hortsci.44.1.206

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Gardening is likely to encourage people to undertake physical exercise, which in turn would contribute to improving both the physical and psychological health of gardeners.

    “Second, and somewhat more indirectly, gardening is likely to encourage people to undertake physical exercise, which in turn would contribute to improving both the physical and psychological health of gardeners (Park et al., 2009, van den Berg et al., 2010, Zick et al., 2013).”

    From Gardening is beneficial for health: A meta-analysis (2017) · cites this paper as Park et al., 2009

    The Abstract describes gardening as moderate-intensity physical activity, and the Discussion reports better physical-health and hand-function measures among active older gardeners. But the Abstract and Health assessments section report no mental-health differences among gardeners and nongardeners, so this study does not support the claimed psychological improvement. Its group comparisons also do not establish that gardening caused the physical benefits. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [22]22. Reynolds, V. 1999. The Green Gym: An evaluation of a pilot project in Sonning Common, Oxford- shire, Report no. 8. Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK.
  2. [23]23. Reynolds, V. 2002. Well-being comes naturally: An evaluation of the BTCV Green Gym at Portslade, East Sussex, Report no. 17. Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK.
  3. [27]27. Tsai, C., M.S. Bayliss, and J.E. Ware. 1997. SF-36Ò health survey annotated bibliography: Second edition (1988-1996). Health Assessment Lab, New England Medical Center, Boston, MA.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Park, S.-A., Shoemaker, C. A., & Haub, M. D.
Affiliations
Kansas State University (US)
Corresponding author
Shoemaker, Candice A.
Venue
HortScience
Published
2009-02
Volume
44
Issue
1
Pages
206-210
ISSN
  • 0018-5345 (ISSN-L)
  • 2327-9834
OpenAlex
W2157559131
Cited by
107
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
FWCI
3.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
HortScience (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Urban Agriculture and Sustainability
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Therapy Practice and Research
Keywords
gardening, older adults, physical activity, physical health, mental health, grip strength, pinch strength, hand function, bone mineral density, energy expenditure, leisure-time physical activity, physical activity guidelines, community-dwelling older adults

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