Exposure to a natural environment to improve parental wellbeing in parents in a homeless shelter: a multiple baseline single case intervention study

Figures & data

Figure 1. Participant recruitment.

Table 1. Participant characteristics.

Family composition	Migration background and reason for shelter care	Supply of care
One parent (F) (25-30Y), two children (1-3Y)	Refugees with a permanent residence permit for the Netherlands. In shelter care due to homelessness after divorce.	The shelter supported the family in finding a permanent home and provided welfare work on request. The local government supported the family with the application for benefit and with lessons in Dutch.
Two parents (M/F) (25-30Y and 15-20Y), two children (1-3Y). Father was the participant	First generation immigrants. In shelter care due to homelessness after home eviction for financial reasons.	The shelter supported the family in finding a permanent home and provided help with administrative tasks such as the application for benefit and arranging health care insurance. The national administrative authority commissioned by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment supported the father in finding employment.
One parent (F), (25-30Y), two children (1-3Y)	Refugees whose application for asylum is denied. In shelter care pending several court decisions.	The family got social work from the shelter, pro deo legal advice from a law firm, and an allowance from a charity fund. The family received no government support.

Figure 2. Visual representation of the data collected in Phase A (baseline) and Phase B (intervention) on need satisfaction with mean levels for both phases.

Figure 3. Visual representation of the data collected in Phase A (baseline) and Phase B (intervention) on need frustration with mean levels for both phases.

Table 2. Test-statistics (measured as the absolute difference between the phase means), effect sizes (measured by standardized mean difference), PEMscores (the percentage of the data that was higher or lower -following hypotheses- in phase B than the median of phase A), NAPscores (the percentage of non-overlapping data between all phase A versus all phase B datapoint comparisons), the randomization test’s p-values, and combined p-values.

Outcome	Test statistic	Effect size	PEMscores	NAPscores	The randomization test’s p-value	Combined p-value
Need satisfaction	0.4	2.16	86%	0.88	0.008**
Need frustration	−0.56	−1.34	93%	0.86	0.056 ns
						Combined p-value for need fulfillment in general = 0.004**
Positive affect	3.41	0.62	65%	0.7	0.432 ns
Negative affect	3.57	−1.26	85%	0.81	0.536 ns
						Combined p-value for affect in general = 0.57 ns
Satisfaction with Life	2.97	−0.12	20%	0.49	0.4 ns

ns = non-significant.

**p < .01.

Figure 4. Visual representation of the data collected in Phase A (baseline) and Phase B (intervention) on subjective positive affect with mean levels for both phases.

Figure 5. Visual representation of the data collected in Phase A (baseline) and Phase B (intervention) on subjective negative affect with mean levels for both phases.

Figure 6. Visual representation of the data collected in Phase A (baseline) and Phase B (intervention) on satisfaction with life with mean levels for both phases.