ArticleScientific reports2023
Visiting nature is associated with lower socioeconomic inequalities in well-being in Wales.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Environmental phenotypes for healthy weight in children using population-based linked environment and health data: a cross-sectional observational study.Health & place · 2026Observational
- A novel approach for mapping exposure to land cover at the small statistical geography level.International journal of health geographics · 2025Article
- How can funding for nature-based programmes impact health inequalities? A realist protocol.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Cumulative residential greenness and childhood body mass index.Environmental epidemiology (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2025Article
- The Influence of Loneliness, Social Support and Income on Mental Well-Being.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2025Article
- Challenges in nature-based health and therapy research and critical considerations for application in musculoskeletal health.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- The use of Enhanced Vegetation Index for assessing access to different types of green space in epidemiological studies.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Natural environments can promote well-being through multiple mechanisms. Many studies have investigated relationships between residential green/blue space (GBS) and well-being, fewer explore relationships with actual use of GBS. We used a nationally representative survey, the National Survey for Wales, anonymously linked with spatial GBS data to investigate associations of well-being with both residential GBS and time in nature (N = 7631). Both residential GBS and time spent in nature were associated with subjective well-being. Higher green-ness was associated with lower well-being, counter to hypotheses (predicting the Warwick and Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS): Enhanced vegetation index β = - 1.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 3.63, - 0.05) but time spent in nature was associated with higher well-being (four hours a week in nature vs. none β = 3.57, 95% CI 3.02, 4.13). There was no clear association between nearest GBS proximity and well-being. In support of the equigenesis theory, time spent in nature was associated with smaller socioeconomic inequalities in well-being. The difference in WEMWBS (possible range 14-70) between those who did and did not live in material deprivation was 7.7 points for those spending no time in nature, and less at 4.5 points for those spending time in nature up to 1 h per week. Facilitating access and making it easier for people to spend time in nature may be one way to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in well-being.
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.