MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399628830 · doi:10.1016/j.envres.2024.119421

Nature-based interventions for physical health conditions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4399628830 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicole A. Struthers, Nasimi A. Guluzade, Aleksandra Zecevic, David M. Walton, Anna Gunz

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Research · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsChildren’s Health Research InstituteLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
FundersWestern University
KeywordsMeta-analysisSystematic reviewPsychological interventionMedicineMEDLINEBiologyPathologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nature-based interventions (NBIs) are activities, strategies, or programs taking place in natural settings, such as exercising in greenspaces, to improve the health and well-being of people by integrating the benefits of nature exposure with healthy behaviours. Current reviews on NBIs do not report the effects on different groups of physical health conditions. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to identify and synthesize the evidence of the effect of NBIs on physical health outcomes and biomarkers of physical health conditions. Overall, 20,201 studies were identified through searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and CENTRAL databases up to June 7, 2024. Inclusion criteria were: 1) randomized controlled intervention studies; 2) population with a physical health condition; 3) NBIs vs. different intervention or no intervention; and 4) measuring physical health outcomes and/or biomarkers. Twenty-six studies were included in the review, 15 of which contributed to the meta-analysis. Compared to control groups, NBIs groups showed significant improvements in: diastolic blood pressure (MD -3.73 mmHg [-7.46 to −0.00], I2 = 62%) and heart rate (MD -7.44 bpm [-14.81 to −0.06], I2 = 0%) for cardiovascular conditions, fatigue (SMD -0.50 [-0.82 to −0.18], I2 = 16%) for central nervous system conditions, and body fat percentage (MD -3.61% [-5.05 to −2.17], I2 = 0%) for endocrine conditions. High effect heterogeneity was found in several analyses and the included studies had moderate-to-high risk of bias (RoB). The non-significant outcomes showed a direction of effect in favour of NBI groups for cardiovascular, central nervous system, endocrine, musculoskeletal, and respiratory conditions. This review found some beneficial effects in favour of NBIs for health outcomes in at least three condition groups though RoB and inconsistent effects limited some interpretations. NBIs are promising therapies that healthcare professionals can consider integrating into clinical practice.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.042
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.274
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ResearchSame topicUrban Green Space and HealthFrench-language works237,207