ArticleJMIR research protocols2025
Measuring Adult Health and Well-Being Outcomes Associated With Nature Contact in Parks and Other Forms of Protected Areas: Protocol for a Scoping Review.
Article in JMIR research protocols, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
backgroundGrowing evidence shows various health and well-being benefits from nature contact in parks and other forms of protected areas. However, the methods to measure these outcomes lack systematic identification, critical appraisal, and synthesis. Researchers working in this area would benefit from a clear framework highlighting key considerations when selecting measurement tools, along with a summary of the measures used, and insights into the limitations of generalizing existing research findings.
objectiveThe objectives of this scoping review are 2-fold. First, we aim to identify the instruments used to measure mental health and well-being outcomes of adults associated with direct nature contact in parks and other forms of protected areas. Second, we aim to evaluate the psychometric properties associated with the validity of these instruments to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of current measurement approaches.
methodsFollowing PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, 8 scholarly databases were searched (PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO [via ProQuest], ERIC [via EBSCOhost], CINAHL [via EBSCOhost], GreenFILE [via EBSCOhost], OVID, and GEOBASE) on January 4, 2023, for literature measuring the mental health and well-being outcomes associated with nature contact in protected areas. Sources were screened by reviewers based on clear inclusion or exclusion criteria relevant to the research questions: peer-reviewed English language studies measuring mental health and well-being focused on adults (aged 18+ years) with direct, in-person nature contact in parks and protected areas. Data will be extracted, analyzed, and represented according to 3 domains. This includes study details, characteristics of the measurement instruments, and their validity.
resultsThe results of the study and submission of a manuscript for peer review are expected in April 2025. The results of the scoping review are expected to contribute to an understanding of the diverse methods used to measure mental health and well-being related to nature contact in protected areas. Expected findings will include an organized summary of existing quantitative and qualitative instruments for measuring mental health and well-being outcomes, including appraisal of the instrument's psychometric properties.
conclusionsTo the authors' knowledge, this will be the first scoping review undertaken on measures used to assess mental health and well-being outcomes related to nature contact in parks and protected areas context, offering a starting point from which to critically examine the validity and consistency of such methods. Findings will aid in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of current measurement approaches to mental health and well-being outcomes of nature contact and may be used to guide future research on this topic, helping researchers choose the best tool to assess outcomes. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/63338.
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.