Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42484798›Full record

ReviewCognitive processing2026

Methodological strengths and weaknesses of nature based intervention: a systematic review.

Harshita Sharma, Neha Singh, Sona Ahuja

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Cognitive processing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Harshita SharmaDepartment of Pedagogical Sciences, Dayalbagh Educational Institute, Agra, India. harshitasharma40067@dei.ac.in.
Neha SinghDepartment of Pedagogical Sciences, Dayalbagh Educational Institute, Agra, India.
Sona AhujaDepartment of Pedagogical Sciences, Dayalbagh Educational Institute, Agra, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is growing interdisciplinary interest in the potential for 'nature-based interventions' (NBIs) to foster physical, social, cognitive, and emotional well-being in children. This review aims to identify the methodological strengths and weaknesses of NBIs and analyze the various activities conducted in NBIs that enhance developmental domains in children. The systematic search was conducted using electronic databases such as PubMed, PsycINFO, Taylor and Francis, and Google Scholar from inception to the present. Children aged 4-12 without health or developmental conditions were eligible to participate in the review. Out of 5168 studies, 12 quantitative studies were selected with an overall sample size of (N = 2,444) inclusion/exclusion criteria. Two authors independently performed the literature search, record screening, data extraction, and quality assessment of each included systematic review. The risk of bias in the systematic reviews was assessed using a well-established modified McMaster Critical Review Form for quantitative studies. Due to the heterogeneity of activities delivered in interventions and measurements, there is a lack of evidence to draw firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness of NBIs. Despite the need to overcome some challenges and knowledge gaps, the studies consistently suggest that NBIs profoundly affect children's socio-emotional, physical, and cognitive domains.

Indexed as

ChildrenDevelopmental domainsNature-based interventionStrengthsWeaknesses

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.