ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2025
Outdoor Natural Versus Built Experiments: A Scoping Review and Methodological Recommendations for Psychological Science.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The beneficial effects of exposure to nature on health and well-being, including enhanced relaxation and improved mood and attention, are well-established. Less evidence exists on understudied outcomes related to clinical populations (e.g., substance use outcomes, decision-making), mainly from laboratory experiments warranting outdoor studies. The purpose of this scoping review was to review and summarize the rich experimental literature of nature exposure on psychological outcomes, and form updated methodological recommendations for future outdoor basic experiments isolating the effect of nature exposure. Four databases and ten systematic reviews were searched. From 6394 references, 60 articles (reporting experiments or secondary analyses) comparing natural versus control-built environments, utilizing short exposure in the environment, and examining psychological outcomes were included and synthesized. We discuss limitations and innovative approaches and provide methodological recommendations. Future research should recruit large and gender-balanced samples, expand to clinical populations, include baseline measurements, assess individual differences, and investigate behavioral and other outcomes that are sparse in the literature. Researchers might consider expanding the dichotomous green-gray environments, pay attention to the sense of safety and participant masking, and assess and report environmental conditions. These recommendations may facilitate investigating unique outcomes that are missing in the literature, which hold implications for nature-prescription and intervention programs.
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.