Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33101104›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2020

An Actual Natural Setting Improves Mood Better Than Its Virtual Counterpart: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Data.

Matthew H E M Browning, Nathan Shipley, Olivia McAnirlin, Douglas Becker, Chia-Pin Yu, Terry Hartig, Angel M Dzhambov

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Matthew H E M BrowningVirtual Reality and Nature Lab, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, United States.
Nathan ShipleyDepartment of Natural Resources and Environmental Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, United States.
Olivia McAnirlinVirtual Reality and Nature Lab, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, United States.
Douglas BeckerDepartment of Natural Resources and Environmental Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, United States.
Chia-Pin YuDepartment of Environmental Health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States.
Terry HartigInstitute for Housing and Urban Research, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Angel M DzhambovDepartment of Hygiene and Ecomedicine, Faculty of Public Health, Medical University of Plovdiv, Plovdiv, Bulgaria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accumulating evidence indicates that simulated natural settings can engage mechanisms that promote health. Simulations offer alternatives to actual natural settings for populations unable to travel outdoors safely; however, few studies have contrasted the effects of simulations of natural settings to their actual outdoor counterparts. We compared the impacts of simulated and actual natural settings on positive and negative affect (mood) levels using a pooled sample of participants enrolled in extant experimental studies. Relevant articles were identified from a review of research published/in press by March 2020 and updated during the peer review of the current study. Of 16 articles identified, 6 met the inclusion criteria and administered a single cross-cutting, standardized instrument [the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)] before and after exposure. Random effects meta-analysis of pooled effects showed that positive affect increased in the actual settings but not in their simulated counterparts (Hedge's

Indexed as

emotionenvironmental simulationsgreen spacemental healthrestorative environmentssystematic reviewvirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID33101104
PMCPMC7554239

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.