SynthesisBMC medical education2026
The effectiveness of aromatherapy interventions on psychological, physiological and academic outcomes in nursing and health sciences students: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC medical education, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNursing and health sciences education involves intensive theoretical and clinical training that can expose students to psychological and physiological stressors, potentially affecting their well-being and academic success. Aromatherapy may help mitigate these challenges. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of aromatherapy interventions across psychological, physiological, and academic outcomes in nursing and health sciences students.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted between 24 and 31 August 2025 across nine databases. Randomized controlled and controlled clinical trials comparing aromatherapy with control or placebo groups were included. Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers, and risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool. Meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan (version 5.4).
resultsThirty-three studies involving 2.312 participants were included. Aromatherapy significantly reduced anxiety (SMD = − 0.46, 95% CI [–0.63, − 0.30], p < 0.00001), pain (SMD = − 1.29, 95% CI [–1.70, − 0.88], p < 0.00001), fatigue (SMD = − 0.79, 95% CI [–1.52, − 0.07], p = 0.03), and systolic (MD = − 3.72, 95% CI [–6.78, − 0.67], p = 0.02) and diastolic blood pressure (MD = − 2.30, 95% CI [–3.67, − 0.92], p = 0.001). No significant effects were observed for stress, pulse rate, respiratory rate, or academic performance.
conclusionAromatherapy appears to be a safe and promising complementary intervention for improving psychological well-being and physiological regulation in nursing and health sciences students. Further high-quality research is needed to refine intervention protocols and strengthen evidence for its educational applications.
trial registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD420251150078).
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.