SynthesisBMC public health2026
Forest therapy for psychological stress and emotional disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundForest therapy has attracted growing research interest as a nature-based intervention for mental health. However, the true magnitude and consistency of its benefits remain uncertain, owing to heterogeneous findings across individual studies and notable methodological variability.
objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis sought to quantitatively synthesize evidence on the effects of forest therapy on psychological stress and emotional disorders (operationally defined here as depressive and anxiety symptoms), and to explore potential moderating factors.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang databases through December 2024. Randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies that examined forest therapy interventions using validated self-report psychological outcome measures were eligible. Random-effects models pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs). Heterogeneity was assessed with Q statistics and I² values; subgroup analyses and meta-regression explored candidate moderators. All analyses were conducted in R (version 4.3.2) using the metafor package (Viechtbauer W. J Stat Softw. 2010;36(3):1-48).
resultsTwenty-five studies involving 1,876 participants met the inclusion criteria. Forest therapy was associated with reductions in psychological stress (SMD = − 0.71, 95% CI: −0.89 to − 0.53), depressive symptoms (SMD = − 0.68, 95% CI: −0.86 to − 0.50), and anxiety symptoms (SMD = − 0.77, 95% CI: −0.97 to − 0.57). Substantial heterogeneity was present across all outcomes (I² > 74%), and the evidence quality was rated moderate for stress and low for emotional disorder outcomes under the GRADE framework. Among the stress outcomes, subgroup analyses indicated that extended intervention periods and clinical populations were linked to larger effect sizes. Publication bias assessment showed modest asymmetry for emotional disorder outcomes; trim-and-fill adjusted estimates remained statistically significant but were attenuated.
conclusionsForest therapy appears to be associated with medium-to-large short-term reductions in psychological stress, depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms, although high between-study heterogeneity and methodological limitations—particularly the reliance on self-report measures and the impossibility of participant blinding—call for cautious interpretation. The findings tentatively support incorporating forest-based interventions into mental health promotion strategies, especially through sustained, multi-session programs. Longer-term follow-up and more rigorous trial designs are needed before firm clinical recommendations can be made.
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.