Measuring Adult Health and Well-Being Outcomes Associated With Nature Contact in Parks and Other Forms of Protected Areas: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Growing evidence shows various health and well-being benefits from nature contact in parks and other forms of protected areas. However, the methods to measure these outcomes lack systematic identification, critical appraisal, and synthesis. Researchers working in this area would benefit from a clear framework highlighting key considerations when selecting measurement tools, along with a summary of the measures used, and insights into the limitations of generalizing existing research findings. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this scoping review are 2-fold. First, we aim to identify the instruments used to measure mental health and well-being outcomes of adults associated with direct nature contact in parks and other forms of protected areas. Second, we aim to evaluate the psychometric properties associated with the validity of these instruments to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of current measurement approaches. METHODS: Following PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, 8 scholarly databases were searched (PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO [via ProQuest], ERIC [via EBSCOhost], CINAHL [via EBSCOhost], GreenFILE [via EBSCOhost], OVID, and GEOBASE) on January 4, 2023, for literature measuring the mental health and well-being outcomes associated with nature contact in protected areas. Sources were screened by reviewers based on clear inclusion or exclusion criteria relevant to the research questions: peer-reviewed English language studies measuring mental health and well-being focused on adults (aged 18+ years) with direct, in-person nature contact in parks and protected areas. Data will be extracted, analyzed, and represented according to 3 domains. This includes study details, characteristics of the measurement instruments, and their validity. RESULTS: The results of the study and submission of a manuscript for peer review are expected in April 2025. The results of the scoping review are expected to contribute to an understanding of the diverse methods used to measure mental health and well-being related to nature contact in protected areas. Expected findings will include an organized summary of existing quantitative and qualitative instruments for measuring mental health and well-being outcomes, including appraisal of the instrument's psychometric properties. CONCLUSIONS: To the authors' knowledge, this will be the first scoping review undertaken on measures used to assess mental health and well-being outcomes related to nature contact in parks and protected areas context, offering a starting point from which to critically examine the validity and consistency of such methods. Findings will aid in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of current measurement approaches to mental health and well-being outcomes of nature contact and may be used to guide future research on this topic, helping researchers choose the best tool to assess outcomes. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/63338.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,094 | 0,105 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,014 | 0,018 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,016 | 0,015 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,010 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,084 | 0,018 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».