SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
What Activities in Forests Are Beneficial for Human Health? A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is altitude a determinant of the health benefits of nature exposure? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2022Pooled it
- Effect of the Kickstart exoskeleton lower extremity walking system on improving lower extremity walking ability in subacute stroke patients: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Trial
- Differential effects of forest environmental perception on psychological well-being: the moderating role of perceived stress in national parks.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- An integrative review of the physical, mental, and socioeconomic benefits of outdoor hiking.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- The differential effects of dynamic, static, and combined activities in forest bathing on health outcomes by gender in older adults: evidence from a national forest park trial.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Nature prescribing: emerging insights about reconciliation-based and culturally inclusive approaches from a tricultural community health centre.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice · 2024Article
- Article
- Mapping of Research in the Field of Forest Therapy-Related Issues: A Bibliometric Analysis for 2007-2021.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the past decade, clinical trials of forest-based interventions have increased, leading to their recognition as preventive medicine. However, little is known about the differences in health effects according to the activity characteristics of interventions. This study aimed to understand the types of activities and their associated health effects to identify differences in health effects between activities. PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched, and methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane ROB2. A total of 32 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the eligibility criteria. Health outcomes were collected from 6264 participants aged 6-98 years, and the sample size was 12-585. The Interventions were walking (n = 21), staying (n = 7), exercise (n = 4), indirect exposure (n = 4), and the activity time was between 10 and 240 min. Overall, walking showed consistent positive health effects, and there were differences in effects on anxiety and depression, cognitive function, stress hormone, and inflammation according to the activity. However, most of the included studies had a high risk of bias, and interventions were limited to specific activities, durations, and frequencies. Although a few limitations remain, the findings in this study are of great significance in providing the basis for the design of forest-based interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.