SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
The Effects of Forest Therapy on the Blood Pressure and Salivary Cortisol Levels of Urban Residents: A Meta-Analysis.
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. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
A Study of Activity Leader to Forest Therapy Campaign in Different Environments Targets on the Participants Which Had Been Infected by SARS-COV-2
Evaluation of the Biological Effects of Complementary and Alternative Health Care Services, Including Forest Therapy, Phytotherapy, and Hirudotherapy, in Individuals With Reduced Work Capacity and/or Special Needs
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comprehensive evaluation of the health benefits of forest therapy for cancer survivors.Environmental health and preventive medicine · 2026Trial
- Reduced hair cortisol concentrations are associated with improved emotional wellbeing in older adults following repeated forest walking.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- The effect of personalized forest therapy programs on stress and obsessive-compulsive symptoms in patients with depression.Frontiers in public health · 2025Trial
- Article
- Nature prescription for patients with chronic respiratory diseases.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2026Review
- Forest Bathing (Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Forest therapy as an intervention for depressive disorders: a review of the mechanisms and applications.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Nature's heart: a scoping review of the impact of nature-based interventions for cardiovascular and metabolic disease.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Research on Companion-Based Forest Therapy and Its Physiological and Psychological Benefits to College Students.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Salivary Biomarkers as a Predictive Factor in Anxiety, Depression, and Stress.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Urban residents have a higher risk of hypertension and psychological stress than rural residents. Aside from medical interventions, understanding how to control hypertension and alleviate the stress of urban populations has become a public concern. As an alternative medical measure, forest therapy has shown the effects of normalizing blood pressure (BP) and reducing stress increasingly in recent literature, but this is still inconclusive. In order to systematically verify forest therapy’s effects on the BP and mental stress of urban residents, we conducted meta-analyses to assess the changes in systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and salivary cortisol concentration (SCC; a stress biomarker) between the forest therapy group and urban control group. We searched 4 online databases, and 21 studies on BP involving 2270 participants and 13 studies on SCC involving 1786 participants were included. Through the meta-analysis, the mean difference and confidence interval (CI) estimates indicated that forest therapy significantly reduced participants’ SBP −3.44 (95% CI −5.74, −1.14), DBP −3.07 (95% CI −5.59, −0.54), and SCC −0.07 (95% CI −0.10, −0.04), as compared with urban control. Yet, there was substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 72.87−88.59%) among these studies. We also found that each prediction interval (PI) for SBP (95% PI −13.30, 6.42), DBP (95% PI −15.54, 9.41), and SCC (95% PI −0.18, 0.05) were all much wider than the CIs and contained values above 0. This means that forest therapy may reduce SBP, DBP, and SCC on average, but may not exclude adverse results. Meta-regression analyses showed that participants’ age and baseline SBP levels determined the heterogeneity among SBP studies. After forest therapy, older participants and those with higher baseline SBP levels had greater SBP-lowering effects. Among DBP studies, the primary source of heterogeneity was participants’ baseline DBP levels; participants with higher baseline DBP levels had greater DBP reduction. In subgroup analyses, we discovered that longer-term forest therapy programs (≥20 min) resulted in a greater reduction in BP and SCC than shorter-term forest therapy programs (<20 min). Additionally, seated viewing, walking, or multi-session programs in forests were observed to have similar effects on reducing BP and SCC. Despite extensive analyses, the study did not identify any sources of heterogeneity among forest therapy programs for lowering SCC levels. Overall, we conclude that forest therapy programs have beneficial therapeutic effects on urban residents’ physio-psychological health through lowering BP and relieving stress (reducing SCC). This finding provides solid evidence of the contribution of forest therapy to urban residents’ health and wellbeing.
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.