ArticlePLOS global public health2026
An international and interdisciplinary framework for nature prescribing in healthcare: A modified Delphi study.
Article in PLOS global 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.
- Teaching the true cost of medicines: white paper for a green and sustainable pharmacology curriculum.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nature prescriptions allow healthcare providers to recommend nature connection and exposure for health and well-being benefits. However, an accepted interdisciplinary shared definition of nature prescription is currently lacking, as are frameworks to guide the use of nature prescription in healthcare. To help fill this knowledge gap, we used an international modified Delphi technique to develop a framework for nature prescribing in healthcare by interdisciplinary experts. Round 1 consisted of virtual focus groups with an expert panel to generate a preliminary framework and framework statements through a qualitative approach, followed by Round 2 to establish agreement, set a priori as ≥75%, on statements to be included in the presented framework. Eight expert panellists participated in the consensus building process, developing and agreeing on 146 statements. The framework consists of: (1) Defining nature prescriptions; (2) Human benefits and risks; (3) Environment benefits and risks; (4) Society and Culture contextual factors and perspectives, acknowledgement of Indigenous knowledges, and equity; (5) Planetary health as a positive feedback loop between the benefits for people and environments; (6) Future directions to aid moving knowledge and implementation of nature prescribing forward. We report an overview of the benefits and risks of nature prescriptions, their potential planetary health impacts, and how they can be equity-driven by incorporating social and cultural differences. This international and interdisciplinary framework for nature prescribing in healthcare offers itself as a guide for the utilization of nature prescriptions in healthcare, and proposes recommendations for research, education, and clinical practice.
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.