Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38831866›Full record

ArticlePublic health reviews2024

Greenspaces and Health: Scoping Review of studies in Europe.

Nicola Banwell, Sarah Michel, Nicolas Senn

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Public health reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. "I know it will make me feel better": a grounded theory of sea gazing and well-being for women in midlife.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

3 authors.

Nicola BanwellInterdisciplinary Centre for Research in Ethics (CIRE), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Sarah MichelDepartment of Family Medicine, Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Nicolas SennDepartment of Family Medicine, Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Access to greenspaces and contact with nature can promote physical activity and have positive effects on physical and mental health. This scoping literature review aims to examine current evidence linking greenspaces and (a) behaviour change, (b) health outcomes and (c) co-benefits. Methods: This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA scoping review guidelines. Searches were conducted through PubMed and EMBASE databases for studies published between 2000 and March 2023 with a focus on Europe. Results: 122 scientific articles and grey literature reports were identified. Access to greenspaces is positively associated with physical and mental health, and reduced risk of all-cause mortality and some non-communicable diseases. Greenspace quality is associated with increased physical activity and reduced risk of obesity. Nature-based therapies or green prescription are effective in improving mental health outcomes and overall health. Importantly, numerous co-benefits of greenspaces are identified. Conclusion: Increasing access to greenspaces for populations with particular attention to greenspace quality is important for co-benefits. Responsible governance and use of greenspaces are crucial to minimize public health risks and human disturbance of nature.

Indexed as

behaviour changeblue spacesco-benefitscontact with naturegreenspaceshealth

Identifiers

PMID38831866
PMCPMC11144923

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.