SynthesisBMC public health2026
Realist review of nature-based interventions for men: understanding the contexts and mechanisms necessary for successful outcomes.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMen face significant health disparities, including higher rates of premature death, mental health challenges, and substance use disorders. Nature-based interventions hold promise for improving men’s health and wellbeing by leveraging natural environments and structured activities aligned with men’s preferences for practical, action-oriented solutions. This realist review explores the contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes of nature-based interventions, providing a gender-specific perspective on how these interventions benefit men.
methodsA realist synthesis was conducted following Pawson et al.’s iterative framework and the RAMESES reporting standards. Initial programme theories were constructed through early interrogation of the men’s health and greenspace literatures, and expert consultations. Data extraction focused on identifying context-mechanism-outcome configurations to refine programme theories. Analysis involved synthesising findings from qualitative, quantitative, and grey literature to demonstrate how nature-based interventions influence men’s wellbeing.
resultsThe review identified nine refined programme theories, encompassing three domains: Being, Doing, and Growing Together. Calming natural settings (PT1) and tailored physical activities (PT2) reduced stress, improved fitness, and enhanced resilience. Purposeful engagement (PT3) and skill development in peer-led, supportive environments (PT4) fostered self-efficacy, identity reformation, and empowerment. Strengths-based, inclusive approaches (PT5, PT6) built social bonds and community cohesion, while structured cognitive engagement (PT7) enhanced problem-solving and collaborative skills. Foundational contexts, including safe, non-judgemental, culturally sensitive spaces (PT8) and tailored, multidisciplinary support (PT9), underpinned these mechanisms, enabling sustained health and wellbeing outcomes.
conclusionsNature-based interventions offer a powerful and gender-responsive solution to men’s mental health challenges, combining restorative natural environments, purposeful activities, and peer-led support. Tailored interventions that align with men’s cultural identities and values significantly enhance engagement, self-efficacy, and social cohesion. These findings provide actionable insights for designing inclusive, impactful nature-based interventions, addressing longstanding health disparities. Future research should explore adapting nature-based interventions to diverse populations and contexts to maximise their reach and effectiveness. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: CRD42023487594
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.