SynthesisNature human behaviour2026
A systematic overview and second-order meta-analysis of nature-based interventions for stress, anxiety and depression.
Synthesis in Nature human behaviour, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Therapist-Guided Forest Therapy in Adolescents: Operational Feasibility and Anxiety-Symptom Signals from a Two-Classroom Quasi-Experimental Pilot Study.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Beyond beneficial or ineffective: three-way decision modeling of image-level affective responses to restorative environment design.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
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
The prevalence of stress, anxiety and depression is increasing globally. Nature-based interventions (NBIs), using natural settings to promote well-being, are recognized for their potential benefits, but synthesis is lacking. We conducted a preregistered (PROSPERO: CRD42024577017) systematic overview and second-order meta-analysis encompassing 116 systematic reviews in the overview and 30 reviews in the second-order meta-analysis from ten databases (representing 3,870 primary studies, over ten million estimated participants). The included systematic reviews evaluated NBI effects against diverse control conditions. Review quality was assessed (AMSTAR 2) alongside potential publication bias. NBIs were effective in reducing overall negative outcomes compared with controls (standardized mean difference (SMD), -0.69; 95% CI, -1.05 to -0.33), with significant reductions observed specifically for anxiety (SMD = -0.83; 95% CI, -1.19 to -0.47), depressive symptoms (SMD = -0.72; 95% CI, -1.05 to -0.40), heart rate (SMD = -0.70; 95% CI, -1.17 to -0.23) and negative affect (SMD = -0.61; 95% CI, -1.06 to -0.16). NBIs also enhanced positive outcomes (SMD = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.33 to 1.46), particularly positive affect (SMD = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.75) and relaxation (SMD = 2.85; 95% CI, 1.86 to 3.84). For positive outcomes, the SMD for psychological dimensions was 1.18 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.69), while the SMD for physiological dimensions was 0.24 (95% CI, -0.19 to 0.67). The predominance of passive control groups and inconsistent intervention definitions across primary studies limit conclusions on relative efficacy. The findings confirm NBI benefits but highlight the need for high-quality primary studies with active comparators to maximize intervention benefits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42209746What 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.