SynthesisScientific reports2025
Thermal conditions modulate urban forest therapy outcomes: a meta-analytic review.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Therapist-Guided Forest Therapy in Adolescents: Operational Feasibility and Anxiety-Symptom Signals from a Two-Classroom Quasi-Experimental Pilot Study.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Differential effects of forest environmental perception on psychological well-being: the moderating role of perceived stress in national parks.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Nature-based interventions (NBIs) such as forest therapy improve stress-related outcomes; however, their efficacy may depend on thermal conditions. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the moderating role of thermal conditions on the psycho-physiological outcomes of forest-based interventions. Following PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42022353168), studies of general populations exposed to forests under varying Discomfort Index (DI) conditions were synthesized. Outcomes included heart rate (HR) and Profile of Mood States (POMS; tension, fatigue, confusion, and vigor). A random-effects meta-analysis with subgroup tests by DI category was performed; risk of bias was assessed with ROB 2/ROBINS-I, and certainty of evidence with GRADE. From 3,384 records, 9 studies (30 cases) were included. Under thermally neutral conditions, forest exposure reduced HR (SMD - 1.19, 95% CI - 1.72 to - 0.66) and improved POMS tension (- 1.36, - 2.08 to - 0.64), fatigue (- 0.90, - 1.24 to - 0.57), confusion (- 1.10, - 1.61 to - 0.60), while increasing vigor (+ 1.23, 0.37 to 2.09). In cold and warm-hot conditions, effects were inconsistent. Evidence certainty was moderate for psychological outcomes and very low for physiological outcomes. These results suggest that psycho-physiological benefits of forest exposure appear contingent on thermal conditions. Because the included studies are geographically concentrated and between-study heterogeneity is substantial, the pooled estimates should be interpreted with caution. Prioritizing thermally neutral DI conditions (16-24) may enhance the effectiveness of NBIs, and future trials using standardized thermal indices in more diverse populations are warranted.
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.