ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023
Spending time in the forest or the field: qualitative semi-structured interviews in a randomized controlled cross-over trial with highly sensitive persons.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spending time in a forest vs. a virtual forest simulation: qualitative and quantitative effects on stress perception and psychological wellbeing in a randomized cross-over trial of highly sensitive persons.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Trial
- Bonded Green Exercise: A One Health Framework for Shared Nature-Based Physical Activity in the Human-Dog Dyad.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Exploring the ethnobiological practices of fire in three natural regions of Ecuador, through the integration of traditional knowledge and scientific approaches.Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The effects of spending time in forests have been subject to investigations in various countries around the world. Qualitative comparisons have been rarely done so far. Methods: Sixteen healthy highly sensitive persons (SV12 score ≥ 18) aged between 18 and 70 years were randomly assigned to groups spending 1 h in the forest and in the field at intervals of one week. Semi-structured interviews were conducted after each intervention and analyzed using a mixed-methods approach of content analysis and grounded theory. Results: Both natural environments induced feelings of inner calmness, inner cleansing, joy, freedom, connectedness, strengthening qualities, and heightened body awareness. The forest environment additionally offered emotional shelter, and showed advantages in promoting inner strength and self-concentration. Discussion: People with previous negative experiences in the forest may feel safer in fields because of the wider view and better overview. Important preconditions are enough time and the absence of a judgmental authority. The two environments induced in part different but also similar emotions which might be useful to promote psychological well-being differentially.
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.