ABSTRACT
Background and objective: The mental health and wellness of university students has been a pressing concern in recent years in the US and is becoming an even larger issue due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Numerous studies have supported the idea that the natural environment can have a positive impact on mental health, but only a few studies focus on the role of university outdoor campus environments on student's mental health. The main purpose of this study is to investigate the correlations between university student mental health and their campus's outdoor environment. Methods: An online survey was designed and distributed to students at Michigan State University, USA. Students were asked questions about their overall mental well-being, as well as questions about their environmental perceptions, outdoor activity, views to nature through windows and safety concerns regarding their outdoor campus environment. Results: The major findings indicate a significant difference in mental health scores for windows in living quarters, where students with living quarter windows had better mental health scores (MHS) than students without living quarter windows. This study also found a marginally significant difference in MHS for students with classroom windows. Other results of this study include a significant difference in MHS for students' perception of safety on campus, outdoor work time, and perception of greenspace on campus. Conclusion: Future campus planner, landscape architects, university planners, and student counselors will use this study to determine what kinds of outdoor spaces should be created and used to improve the well-being of students. © 2022 by the Society for People, Plants, and Environment.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, most treatments in mental health care are provided through video calling. AIM: To poll what they think of remote care among 605 care providers of Arkin. METHOD: We surveyed 605 professionals on their experiences. RESULTS: Enthusiasm for remote care was found predominantly among psychologists who worked in curative care. They reported practical benefits for the patient and for the process of care provision. Psychiatrists and clinical psychologists who provided care to patients with complex and/or chronic problems. They feared a deterioration in quality of care and a decline in their job satisfaction. Nurses were also critical, especially those who provided FACT and outreaching care. Their patients often lacked the resources or skills required to access digital care. CONCLUSION: This assessment of remote care was likely adversely affected by the corona measures. Employees were suddenly forced to alter their usual work habits and had not been optimally trained in the new method were more critical. Moreover, they were forced to work from home and lacked informal professional contact with colleagues. Nevertheless, professionals have a nuanced and predominantly positive opinion of video calling: it is not suitable for everyone or appropriate under all circumstances, but remote care is seen as a useful addition to the existing arsenal of treatment modalities.