ArticleBMJ open2022
Context, classification and study methodologies in research into nature-based therapies: protocol for a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNature provides an array of health benefits, and recent decades have seen a resurgence in nature-based interventions (NBI). While NBI have shown promise in addressing health needs, the wide variety of intervention approaches create difficulty in understanding the efficacy of NBI as a whole. This scoping review will (1) identify the different nomenclature used to define NBI, (2) describe the interventions used and the contexts in which they occurred and (3) describe the methodologies and measurement tools used in NBI studies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols Extension for Scoping Reviews, four databases will be searched (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global) as well as cross-referencing for published and unpublished (masters theses and dissertations) studies on NBI in humans. Eligible studies must employ intervention or observational designs, and an English-language abstract will be required. Database searches will occur from inception up to the date of the search. Animal-based therapies and virtual-reality therapies involving simulated nature will be excluded. Independent dual screening and data abstraction will be conducted. Results will be analysed qualitatively as well as with simple descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Since this is a scoping review of previously published summary data, ethical approval for this study is not needed. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. This protocol has been registered with Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/mtzc8).
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.