Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36232042›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

An Analysis of Theoretical Perspectives in Research on Nature-Based Interventions and Pain.

Reo J F Jones, Chloé O R Littzen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

2 authors.

Reo J F JonesSchool of Nursing, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97239, USA.
Chloé O R LittzenSchool of Nursing and Health Innovations, The University of Portland, Portland, OR 97203, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8981-235X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chronic pain results from a complex series of biomechanical, inflammatory, neurological, psychological, social, and environmental mechanisms. Pain and pain-related diseases are the leading causes of disability and disease burden globally. Employing nature-based interventions for the treatment of pain is an emerging field. Current theory driving the suggested mechanism(s) linking the pain reducing effects of nature-based interventions is lacking. A two-step approach was taken to complete a theoretical review and analysis. First, a literature review was completed to gather a substantive amount of research related to theoretical frameworks on the topic of nature-based interventions and pain. Secondly, a theoretical analysis as proposed by Walker and Avant was completed to explore current theoretical frameworks accepted in the literature on nature-based interventions and pain. Stress reduction theory and attention restoration theory were the most common theoretical frameworks identified. Neither theoretical framework explicitly identifies, describes, or intends to adequately measure the concept of pain, revealing a limitation for their application in research with nature-based interventions and pain. Theoretical development is needed, as it pertains to nature-based interventions and pain. Without this development, research on nature-based interventions and pain will continue to use proxy concepts for measurement and may result in misrepresented findings.

Indexed as

Chronic PainHumansattention restoration theorybiophilia hypothesisgreenspacenature-based interventionsnursing theorypainstress reduction theorytheory

Identifiers

PMID36232042
PMCPMC9566272

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.