ArticlePloS one2025
Nature-based interventions for individual, collective and planetary wellbeing: A protocol for a scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nature-based interventions (NBIs) provide an opportunity to enhance individual wellbeing, improve community cohesion, and promote a culture of care for the environment. Several scoping reviews have attempted to catalogue the positive effects of NBIs on wellbeing, yet, these have typically focused on outcomes relating to individual wellbeing, thus restricting the assessment of the possible benefits of NBIs. Here we present a protocol for a scoping review that will synthesise the evidence relating to the impact of NBIs across a much broader range of domains with a focus on self (individual wellbeing), others (collective wellbeing) and nature (planetary wellbeing). This scoping review will also provide insight into the relative effectiveness of different types of NBIs at enhancing wellbeing across these domains and synthesise the underlying theory on which interventions have been developed and reported outcomes have been presented. A literature search for theses and peer-reviewed studies will be conducted on four databases (APAPsycINFO, Web of Science, Medline, and Scopus) and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Two independent reviewers will complete a two-stage screening process (title/abstract and full-text) using the Covidence platform. The protocol for this scoping review is registered with the Open Science Framework. Data extraction will focus on publication details, type of intervention, and wellbeing-related outcomes. Results will be reported in a scoping review following standardised guidelines relating to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. This research will inform the design and delivery of NBI's across a wide range of sectors including health and social care, public policy, education, and community services, to ultimately promote human flourishing at scale.
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.