ArticleObstetrics & gynecology science2024
Living lab modelling as a pilot study assessing the potential psychological health benefits of forest environment for cancer survivors.
Article in Obstetrics & gynecology science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A comprehensive evaluation of the health benefits of forest therapy for cancer survivors.Environmental health and preventive medicine · 2026Trial
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
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the physiological and psychological changes in cancer survivors who engage in repeated forest therapy in a living environment.
methodsThis study included stay-based forest therapy for female cancer survivors aged ≥40 years. The program was conducted in two cycles, each spanning 3 weeks and consisting of a 2-night, 3-day stay, followed by daily life integration. The cycles were repeated from July 2, 2022, to August 18, 2022. Participant assessment included standard physical health parameters and a questionnaire on general characteristics, lifestyle habits, stress levels, and health status.
resultsThirty-seven female cancer survivors participated in the forest healing program, 56.8% of whom had a history of breast cancer. The median body mass index (BMI) was 23.80 kg/m2 (range, 21.00-25.60). More than half of the patients reported mild-to-moderate fatigue, chronic pain, and mild-to-moderate depression (81%, 65%, and 73%, respectively). After two cycles of forest therapy, no significant differences were observed in terms of fatigue, pain, or BMI levels. However, significant improvements were found in quality of life measures, particularly the psychological quality of life (mean score 12.54 at baseline vs. 13.48 after cycle 2; P=0.007). Positive improvements were also observed in terms of stress (mean score 17.03 vs. 13.76; P=0.002) and depression (mean score 8.35 vs. 6.11; P=0.002) levels.
conclusionOur forest-healing program demonstrated that nature-based therapies improve the mental health and quality of life of female cancer survivors, suggesting the need for further research on nature-based interventions to better support cancer survivors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.