Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42039066›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Comparing guided and unguided forest bathing for graduate student stress management: a pilot study.

Zhiyong Zhang, Yue Gao, Xiaoyu Huang, Bing Ye

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Zhiyong ZhangResearch Institute of Forestry Policy and Information, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing, China.
Yue GaoResearch Institute of Forestry Policy and Information, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing, China.
Xiaoyu HuangResearch Institute of Forestry Policy and Information, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing, China.
Bing YeResearch Institute of Forestry Policy and Information, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The escalating mental health crisis among graduate students has become a pressing public health concern, necessitating the development of effective, accessible, and low-cost stress management strategies. While exposure to green spaces is known to benefit psychological well-being, the differential efficacy of structured versus unstructured forest activities remains understudied. Methods: This investigation evaluated the emotion regulation benefits of short-term forest healing experiences among graduate students in Beijing. The study compared the effects of forest versus urban environments and compared therapist-guided versus unguided modalities. Results: Results indicated that: (1) Brief outdoor activities significantly reduced negative emotions (tension, depression, anger, fatigue, confusion) across all groups; (2) Compared with the urban environment, the forest environment demonstrated greater efficacy in regulating emotions, supported by superior environmental quality (e.g., higher negative air ions, lower noise) ; and (3) Notably, the presence of a forest therapist did not yield statistically superior benefits compared to unguided forest exposure. Conclusion: These findings suggest that self-guided forest bathing serves as a sufficient, cost-effective, and easily accessible intervention for daily stress reduction. Consequently, promoting unguided nature exposure offers a scalable public health solution to mitigate the mental health burden in high-stress academic populations.

Indexed as

cost-effectivenessemotion regulationforest bathinggraduate studentsnature therapypsychological wellbeingrestorative environment

Identifiers

PMID42039066
PMCPMC13102565

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.