ArticleSystematic reviews2025
How can funding for nature-based programmes impact health inequalities? A realist protocol.
Article in Systematic reviews, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNature-based programmes facilitate access to group-based structured activities that take place in the natural environment. These programmes have been found to improve the health and wellbeing of participants. However, downstream individualised interventions can be associated with intervention-generated inequalities. There is a concern that if nature-based programmes are not designed and delivered appropriately, they could worsen health inequalities. Many nature-based programmes are either reliant on charitable funders or public sector funding. It is likely that the source of funding will have consequences for who the programme is for and who is able to access the programme. However, there is a lack of robust understanding of how the funding system contributes to the outcomes of nature-based programmes.
methodThe aim of this project is to explore what is known about the impact funding of nature-based programmes can have on health inequalities, primarily through impacts on the targeting of, and recruitment to the activities. Secondary and primary data will be used to develop, refute and refine programme theory. Initial programme theories will be developed through scoping the literature and theory gleaning qualitative interviews. These theories will be tested and refined through a realist review of evidence and further qualitative realist testing interviews. DISCUSSION: This project aims to inform practical strategies and frameworks (underpinned by programme theory) to help programme funders, designers and implementers understand how to design and deliver their programmes as equitably as possible.
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.