ArticleScientific reports2025
Exploring the preferences of college students for horticultural therapy activities based on a new classification framework.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To reveal college students' preferences for types of horticultural therapy (HT) activities and the influence ofbiopsychosocial factors, an online questionnaire with AI-generated illustrations was administered to assess 622respondents' preferences for 21 HT activities and their biopsychosocial characteristics. Confirmatory factor analysisconfirmed a four-dimensional model consisting of Making (MA), Planting (PL), Active Perception (AP), and PassivePerception (PP) with good fit and reliability. The preference means ranked as MA (M = 4.065) > AP (M = 3.829) > PL(M = 3.797) > PP (M = 3.646). Biologically, females exhibit a significantly stronger preference for MA (t = - 4.32) and PP(t = - 2.18) compared to males, as evidenced by t-test results. Psychologically, natural connectedness was strongly andpositively correlated with preferences for all types of HT (r = 0.522-0.648), whereas psychological well-being showed onlya weak positive correlation with PL (r = 0.146) through correlation analysis. Individuals with more experience in HT showeda significantly higher preference for PL (F = 6.80), AP (F = 8.42), and PP (F = 3.81) according to ANOVA results. Socially, theANOVA results indicated that there was no significant difference in the preferences for HT types among students ofdifferent educational backgrounds. This study validates a novel framework for classifying HT activities grounded inhuman-plant interactions and, by examining the influence of biopsychosocial factors on preferences for HT, providesstronger evidence for personalized design of HT programs tailored to college students.
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.