ArticleBMJ open2026
Walk-and-talk versus conventional psychotherapy for men with depressive symptoms: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWalk-and-talk therapy integrates psychological support and physical activity conducted in outdoor environments, and has potential to better align with men's preferences and masculine norms around emotional communication. Conventional indoor psychotherapy is effective for treating depression but can be less engaging for men, leading to less satisfaction and high rates of dropout. This trial aims to determine whether walk-and-talk therapy offers men with depressive symptoms clinically meaningful benefits over conventional indoor therapy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This assessor-blinded, parallel group randomised controlled trial is comparing the efficacy of walk-and-talk therapy to conventional indoor therapy for men with depressive symptoms. After randomisation, all participants receive 10 fortnightly 1-hour individual psychotherapy sessions over 20 weeks as either: (1) conventional indoor therapy (sitting down indoors) or (2) walk-and-talk therapy (walking outdoors). Participants are assessed at 'pre-intervention' (baseline), 'post-intervention' (5 months post baseline) and 'follow-up' (12 months post baseline) time points. The primary outcome is change in overall psychological distress (21-item version of the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21)) at post-intervention. Secondary outcomes include male-type depression symptoms, mental well-being, suicidal ideation and quality of life. Costing data is being collected for cost-effectiveness analysis. Linear mixed models will be used to examine the impact of group (conventional indoor vs walk-and-talk), time (baseline, 5-month and 12-month) and the group-by-time interaction for primary and secondary outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is approved by the University of Newcastle Human Research Ethics Committee (H-2024-0090). Results will be published in an open access peer-reviewed journal and disseminated through conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12624000794505.
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.