Trial reportClinical psychology & psychotherapy
Walk-and-Talk Therapy Versus Conventional Indoor Therapy for Men With Low Mood: A Randomised Pilot Study.
Trial report in Clinical psychology & psychotherapy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparative efficacy of green exercise versus indoor exercise for depression and anxiety: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Effects of green exercise on mental health: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Pooled it
- Effects of urban green exercise on mental health: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Walk-and-talk versus conventional psychotherapy for men with depressive symptoms: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial.BMJ open · 2026Article
- An Update on the Effect of Physical Exercise on Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While psychotherapy is effective for treating depression, men are less likely than women to attend and more likely to drop out. The value of alternative therapeutic approaches for men needs to be investigated. In this randomised pilot trial, we investigated the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of outdoor 'walk-and-talk' therapy compared to conventional indoor therapy for 37 men with low mood (mean [SD] PHQ-9 score = 11.4 [5.0]; mean [SD] age = 44.1 [15.8] years). Over 6 weeks at the University of Newcastle participants received weekly 60-min sessions delivered (i) while walking along a 4-km route on campus or (ii) indoors in a psychology clinic, delivered by provisional psychologists using non-directive supportive counselling. Outcomes included validated measures of depression, anxiety, stress and overall psychological distress, male-type depression, mental well-being, behavioural activation and therapeutic alliance. At post-intervention, all pre-registered feasibility benchmarks were exceeded including recruitment capability, retention (89%), average attendance (walk-and-talk: 91%, indoor: 89%), proportion of sessions delivered in intended setting (walk-and-talk: 100%, indoor: 98%) and overall perceived acceptability of the therapy (walk-and-talk: 4.4/5, indoor: 4.2/5, where 1 = poor and 5 = excellent). Linear mixed model analysis demonstrated both groups achieved similar improvements in depressive symptoms (d = -0.02), but the walk-and-talk group reported greater improvements in overall psychological distress (d = -0.5), anxiety (d = -0.4) and stress (d = -0.7). In contrast, male-type depression improved more in the conventional indoor group (d = 0.6). Other outcomes were comparable between groups. Results indicate that walk-and-talk therapy may be acceptable and effective for men with depression. A powered trial to interrogate these effects and identify moderators of effectiveness is warranted. Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number: ACTRN12622001318774.
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.