ArticleDigital health
Shall we walk? A user study of an app tracking time in nature in everyday life.
Article in Digital health. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Little is known about how smartphone apps can encourage nature visits, and previous research suggests that human perceptions are key to both app development and understanding the quality of natural environments. This study developed and tested an app feature that tracks time in nature by calculating a green index to estimate the amount of nature at a location using map data and estimated levels of traffic noise. Methods: A formative evaluation was conducted in which 29 participants visited five pre-selected locations representing various types of urban nature, and provided ratings of "perceived nature", perceived environmental restorativeness, and overall feeling. Additional measures included age, gender, baseline nature connectedness, perceived weather conditions, and an unstructured interview. Results: The green index vs perceived nature ratings (mean ± SD) at each location was 88 vs 49.9 ± 22.9 at location 1 (Pedestrian bridge); 63 vs 61.8 ± 15.7 at location 2 (Park); 31 vs 63.5 ± 18.7 at location 3 (River, green); 21 vs 44.8 ± 22.4 at location 4 (Trafficked bridge); and 50 vs 48.0 ± 21.4 at location 5 (River, grey), reflecting both underestimation and overestimation of the green index, with significant inter-individual differences. Perceived environmental restorativeness and feeling were positively correlated with perceived nature ratings. Qualitative data revealed varying preferences for green vs blue environments and the extent to which traffic noise influenced their perceptions. Conclusion: The divergence between app-based and user assessments suggests that such assessments should be calibrated using individualized user feedback, and that careful consideration is needed regarding the level of statistical detail presented to users.
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.