Trial reportApplied psychology. Health and well-being2026
Nature-based meaning-focused photography intervention enhances subjective well-being: A three-arm randomized controlled study.
Trial report in Applied psychology. Health and well-being, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Gaining meaning from nature contact can promote subjective well-being. However, few studies have validated the effectiveness of nature-based meaning interventions in enhancing subjective well-being. This study consisted of a 7-day online intervention to examine the effects of nature-based meaning-focused photography on well-being by comparing a photo-only group, a photo + writing group, and a waiting list control group and how meaning in life mediates the relationship between nature contact and well-being. A pre-registered three-arm randomized controlled trial (groups: photo + writing group vs. photo-only group vs. control group) * (time: pre-test vs. post-test vs. 1-month follow-up) was conducted with 219 college students. In the photo + writing group, participants captured nature scenes and wrote 100-word reflections. The photo-only group only took nature photos. The primary outcomes were meaning in life and well-being, and the secondary outcome was life satisfaction. A conservative Bayesian causal forest analysis based on machine learning was used to detect both treatment and heterogeneous intervention effects. Compared with the control group, the photo + writing group showed positive effects on meaning in life, subjective well-being, and life satisfaction, with average treatment effects of 0.36, 0.27, and 0.66 standard deviations (SD), respectively. The photo-only group also showed generally positive effects on these outcomes, with average treatment effects of 0.27, 0.24, and 0.54 SD, respectively. However, these effects were not sustained after 1 month. The intervention was especially beneficial for participants from lower subjective socioeconomic status, with limited prior nature exposure, or lower baseline psychological well-being. Importantly, enhanced meaning in life helped explain how the intervention improved well-being and life satisfaction. This study also demonstrated that combining nature-based photography and reflective writing can improve well-being.
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.