You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 80, Issue 2
  • Cross-sectional associations of different types of nature exposure with psychotropic, antihypertensive and asthma medication

Article Text

Article menu
Environment
Original research
Cross-sectional associations of different types of nature exposure with psychotropic, antihypertensive and asthma medication
  1. Anu W Turunen1,
  2. Jaana Halonen2,
  3. Kalevi Korpela3,
  4. Ann Ojala4,
  5. Tytti Pasanen1,
  6. Taina Siponen1,
  7. Pekka Tiittanen1,
  8. Liisa Tyrväinen4,
  9. Tarja Yli-Tuomi1,
  10. Timo Lanki1,5,6
  1. 1 Department of Health Security, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Kuopio, Finland
  2. 2 Department of Health Security, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland
  3. 3 Faculty of Social Sciences (Psychology), Tampere University, Tampere, Finland
  4. 4 Bioeconomy and Environment, Natural Resources Institute, Helsinki, Finland
  5. 5 Department of Environmental and Biological Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland
  6. 6 School of Medicine, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland
  1. Correspondence to Dr Anu W Turunen, Department of Health Security, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Kuopio, Finland; anu.turunen{at}thl.fi

Abstract

Background Exposure to natural environments is thought to be beneficial for human health, but the evidence is inconsistent.

Objective To examine whether exposure to green and blue spaces in urban environments is associated with mental and physical health in Finland.

Methods The Helsinki Capital Region Environmental Health Survey was conducted in 2015−2016 in Helsinki, Espoo and Vantaa in Finland (n=7321). Cross-sectional associations of the amounts of residential green and blue spaces within 1 km radius around the respondent’s home (based on the Urban Atlas 2012), green and blue views from home and green space visits with self-reported use of psychotropic (anxiolytics, hypnotics and antidepressants), antihypertensive and asthma medication were examined using logistic regression models. Indicators of health behaviour, traffic-related outdoor air pollution and noise and socioeconomic status (SES) were used as covariates, the last of these also as a potential effect modifier.

Results Amounts of residential green and blue spaces or green and blue views from home were not associated with medications. However, the frequency of green space visits was associated with lower odds of using psychotropic medication (OR=0.67, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.82 for 3–4 times/week; 0.78, 0.63 to 0.96 for ≥5 times/week) and antihypertensive (0.64, 0.52 to 0.78; 0.59, 0.48 to 0.74, respectively) and asthma (0.74, 0.58 to 0.94; 0.76, 0.59 to 0.99, respectively) medication use. The observed associations were attenuated by body mass index, but no consistent interactions with SES indicators were observed.

Conclusions Frequent green space visits, but not the amounts of residential green or blue spaces, or green and blue views from home, were associated with less frequent use of psychotropic, antihypertensive and asthma medication in urban environments.

  • Epidemiology
  • Public health
  • Environment
  • Cross-Sectional Studies

Data availability statement

No data available based on General Data Protection Regulation.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2022-108491

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    No data available based on General Data Protection Regulation.

    View Full Text

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @jaana_halonen

    • Contributors TL designed the study, and TL, LT, KK, AO and PT designed the questionnaire. TYT produced the exposure data. TL, PT, JH and AWT drafted the analysis plan, and AWT analysed the data and drafted the manuscript. TL, PT, JH and AWT interpreted the results. All authors revised the draft and approved the manuscript before submission. TL and AWT act as the guarantors of the work.

    • Funding This work was supported by the Academy of Finland (Decision No. 255440), and the Ministry of the Environment as a part of Lähiöohjelma 2020−2022 (Document No. VN/10679/2020-YM-3).

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.