| Literature DB >> 33145166 |
A-Young Lee1, Soo-Young Kim2, Hyuk Joon Kwon2, Sin-Ae Park1,3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The restricted environment in prison negatively affects psychological health of prisoners, which in turn affects the rehabilitation of the prisoners. Previous studies have shown that horticultural activities were effective in improving psychological health of prisoners. The objectives were to develop a horticultural therapy (HT) program and to determine the association of 12 sessions with participants' psychological health using case analysis.Entities:
Keywords: Case report; Gardening; Offender therapy; Psychological health; Social farming; Strengths-based approach
Year: 2020 PMID: 33145166 PMCID: PMC7591733 DOI: 10.1016/j.imr.2020.100495
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Integr Med Res ISSN: 2213-4220
Descriptive information of participants in the HT program.
| Case | Descriptive information |
|---|---|
| A | A 48-year-old male who performed 28 years of military service and received an eight-year prison sentence for a military accident in 2016. Participated in the HT program to gain knowledge of growing plants to engage in farming after release from prison as well as to gain a sense of refreshment through vigorous outdoor activities. |
| B | A 47-year-old male who performed 24 years of military service and received a prison sentence for a lawsuit accident during military service. Had a deprived childhood because of financial difficulties. His 20 s as a university student were his heydays. Participated in the HT program to experience a little bit of happiness in prison. |
| C | A 40-year-old male who performed 20 years of military service. Experienced difficulties in adjusting to the military, got divorced in his 20 s, and led a happy life after remarriage in his early 40 s. Participated in the HT program to reignite his interest in horticulture that went beyond prison yardwork. |
| D | A 43-year-old male who performed 19 years of military service and received a 2.5-year prison sentence for a military accident in 2017. Spent his heyday with family and in the military between the ages of 25 and 41. Participated in the HT program to gain more horticultural knowledge as a person-in-charge for yardwork in prison. |
| E | A 28-year-old male who performed one year of military service. Went to study in the USA under parental pressure in his early 20 s, specializing in physical education and psychology. Participated in the HT program to gain more horticultural knowledge as a person-in-charge for yardwork in prison. |
Fig. 1Timeline for the horticultural therapy program and case evaluation.
The 12-session HT program based on the Good Lives Model for improving prisoners’ psychological health.
| Stage | Session | Horticultural activity |
|---|---|---|
| Searching for resources | 1 | Giving instructions on principles of horticultural activity |
| 2 | Designing and making garden plot | |
| 3 | Sowing seeds | |
| 4 | ||
| 5 | ||
| 6 | ||
| 7 | Transplanting plants to pots | |
| 8 | ||
| Looking for the causes of the offense | 9 | Transplanting plants to pots |
| 10 | ||
| Planning for practice | 11 | Transplanting plants to garden plot |
| 12 |
The HT program involved three stages: In Stage 1, the participants searched internal and external resources to fulfill 11 primary elements such as happiness, health, knowledge, work, community, inner peace, relatedness, creativity, and so on, all of which are necessary to live good lives. In Stage 2, the participants conducted risk management practices while determining the causes of the offense that led to their sentencing. In Stage 3, the participants made action plans using available resources that are determined in Stage 1 to achieve good lives.
Pre- and post-test responses of the prisoners (n = 5) participated in the HT program. The HT program was organized under the basis of the Good Lives Model on the psychological health of the prisoners.
| Case | Depression | Anger | Self-esteem | Life satisfaction | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-test | Post-test | Pre-test | Post-test | Pre-test | Post-test | Pre-test | Post-test | |
| A | 6 | 1 | 15 | 14 | 29 | 37 | 18 | 20 |
| B | 6 | 6 | 10 | 11 | 37 | 34 | 23 | 30 |
| C | 14 | 10 | 15 | 16 | 27 | 26 | 16 | 27 |
| D | 18 | 13 | 11 | 12 | 28 | 31 | 8 | 7 |
| E | 4 | 5 | 11 | 10 | 40 | 39 | 32 | 33 |
| Mean (SD) | 9.6 (6.0) | 7.0 (4.6) | 12.4 (2.4) | 12.6 (2.4) | 32.2 (5.9) | 33.4 (5.1) | 19.4 (8.9) | 23.4 (10.4) |
| Difference | −2.6 | 0.2 | 1.2 | 4.0 | ||||
Derived using the Korean version of the Beck Depression Inventory (KBDI). The total score ranges from 0 to 63. A higher score indicates more severe depression symptoms.
Derived using the Korean version of the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory. The total score ranges from 0 to 40. A higher score indicates a higher degree of state anger.
Derived using the Korean version of the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale. The total score ranges from 10 to 40. A higher score indicates a higher degree of self-esteem.
Derived using the Korean version of the Satisfaction with Life Scale. The total score ranges from 0 to 35. A higher score indicates a higher degree of life satisfaction.
Differences between pre-test and post-test scores.