Dataset Information

A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is increasing interest in the potential role of the natural environment in human health and well-being. However, the evidence-base for specific and direct health or well-being benefits of activity within natural compared to more synthetic environments has not been systematically assessed.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review to collate and synthesise the findings of studies that compare measurements of health or well-being in natural and synthetic environments. Effect sizes of the differences between environments were calculated and meta-analysis used to synthesise data from studies measuring similar outcomes.

Results

Twenty-five studies met the review inclusion criteria. Most of these studies were crossover or controlled trials that investigated the effects of short-term exposure to each environment during a walk or run. This included 'natural' environments, such as public parks and green university campuses, and synthetic environments, such as indoor and outdoor built environments. The most common outcome measures were scores of different self-reported emotions. Based on these data, a meta-analysis provided some evidence of a positive benefit of a walk or run in a natural environment in comparison to a synthetic environment. There was also some support for greater attention after exposure to a natural environment but not after adjusting effect sizes for pretest differences. Meta-analysis of data on blood pressure and cortisol concentrations found less evidence of a consistent difference between environments across studies.

Conclusions

Overall, the studies are suggestive that natural environments may have direct and positive impacts on well-being, but support the need for investment in further research on this question to understand the general significance for public health.

SUBMITTER: Bowler DE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2924288 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments.

Bowler Diana E DE Buyung-Ali Lisette M LM Knight Teri M TM Pullin Andrew S AS

BMC public health 20100804

<h4>Background</h4>There is increasing interest in the potential role of the natural environment in human health and well-being. However, the evidence-base for specific and direct health or well-being benefits of activity within natural compared to more synthetic environments has not been systematically assessed.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a systematic review to collate and synthesise the findings of studies that compare measurements of health or well-being in natural and synthetic environments ...[more]

PMID: 20684754

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe health benefits of greenspaces have demanded the attention of policymakers since the 1800s. Although much evidence suggests greenspace exposure is beneficial for health, there exists no systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesise and quantify the impact of greenspace on a wide range of health outcomes.ObjectiveTo quantify evidence of the impact of greenspace on a wide range of health outcomes.MethodsWe searched five online databases and reference lists up to January 2017. Studies satisfying a priori eligibility criteria were evaluated independently by two authors.ResultsWe included 103 observational and 40 interventional studies investigating ~100 health outcomes. Meta-analysis results showed increased greenspace exposure was associated with decreased salivary cortisol -0.05 (95% CI -0.07, -0.04), heart rate -2.57 (95% CI -4.30, -0.83), diastolic blood pressure -1.97 (95% CI -3.45, -0.19), HDL cholesterol -0.03 (95% CI -0.05, <-0.01), low frequency heart rate variability (HRV) -0.06 (95% CI -0.08, -0.03) and increased high frequency HRV 91.87 (95% CI 50.92, 132.82), as well as decreased risk of preterm birth 0.87 (95% CI 0.80, 0.94), type II diabetes 0.72 (95% CI 0.61, 0.85), all-cause mortality 0.69 (95% CI 0.55, 0.87), small size for gestational age 0.81 (95% CI 0.76, 0.86), cardiovascular mortality 0.84 (95% CI 0.76, 0.93), and an increased incidence of good self-reported health 1.12 (95% CI 1.05, 1.19). Incidence of stroke, hypertension, dyslipidaemia, asthma, and coronary heart disease were reduced. For several non-pooled health outcomes, between 66.7% and 100% of studies showed health-denoting associations with increased greenspace exposure including neurological and cancer-related outcomes, and respiratory mortality.ConclusionsGreenspace exposure is associated with numerous health benefits in intervention and observational studies. These results are indicative of a beneficial influence of greenspace on a wide range of health outcomes. However several meta-analyses results are limited by poor study quality and high levels of heterogeneity. Green prescriptions involving greenspace use may have substantial benefits. Our findings should encourage practitioners and policymakers to give due regard to how they can create, maintain, and improve existing accessible greenspaces in deprived areas. Furthermore the development of strategies and interventions for the utilisation of such greenspaces by those who stand to benefit the most.

Project description:IntroductionNature exposure is a widely accepted option for promoting public health owing to the recent surge of scientific evidence. However, the actual settings to facilitate this initiative is yet to be extensively reviewed. In this systematic review, we have aimed to provide an up-to-date summary of interventional studies investigating the psycho-physiological effects of forests and urban forests, including details on their physical settings, and investigate an effect-modifying role of altitude and summarize data on the magnitude and shape of the association.MethodsA keyword search using five electronic academic databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Scopus) was conducted to identify relevant articles published in English from the inception year to the end of February 2022. The methodological quality was evaluated using the ROBINS-I or ROB2 tool, depending on the study design. Meta-regression and random effects model were jointly used to examine the relationship between altitude and health outcomes.ResultsWe included 27 eligible studies and 31 cases extracted from 19 studies were used for the meta-analysis. In the meta-regression, we observed a non-linear association between altitude and psycho-physiological effects. Altitude had a positive quadratic association with anxiety (p < 0.000, adjusted R 2 = 96.79%), depression (p < 0.000, adjusted R 2 = 98.78%), and fatigue (p < 0.000, adjusted R 2 = 64.74%) alleviating effects. Conversely, altitude demonstrated a negative non-linear association with the blood pressure-lowering effect (p = 0.009, adjusted R 2 = 32.83%). Additionally, the thermal index (THI) and illuminance (lx) levels were significantly associated with effect sizes of psychological restoration.DiscussionThis review provides moderate-certainty evidence for an effect-modifying role of altitude. The meta-regression results suggested the optimal and minimal altitude ranges for psychological restoration and physiological relaxation, respectively. Despite some limitations, the study findings provide a significant basis for utilizing altitude, which is easily accessible and simple, to promote the health benefits of nature-based initiatives.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022310894, identifier: CRD42022310894.

Project description:BackgroundGlobally, the status of women's health falls short of its potential. In addition to the deleterious ethical and human rights implications of this deficit, the negative economic impact may also be consequential, but these mechanisms are poorly understood. Building on the literature that highlights health as a driver of economic growth and poverty alleviation, we aim to systematically investigate the broader economic benefits of investing in women's health.MethodsUsing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we systematically reviewed health, gender, and economic literature to identify studies that investigate the impact of women's health on micro- and macroeconomic outcomes. We developed an extensive search algorithm and conducted searches using 10 unique databases spanning the timeframe 01/01/1970 to 01/04/2013. Articles were included if they reported on economic impacts stemming from changes in women's health (table of outcome measures included in full review, Table 1). In total, the two lead investigators independently screened 20,832 abstracts and extracted 438 records for full text review. The final review reflects the inclusion of 124 articles.ResultsThe existing literature indicates that healthier women and their children contribute to more productive and better-educated societies. This study documents an extensive literature confirming that women's health is tied to long-term productivity: the development and economic performance of nations depends, in part, upon how each country protects and promotes the health of women. Providing opportunities for deliberate family planning; healthy mothers before, during, and after childbirth, and the health and productivity of subsequent generations can catalyze a cycle of positive societal development.ConclusionsThis review highlights the untapped potential of initiatives that aim to address women's health. Societies that prioritize women's health will likely have better population health overall, and will remain more productive for generations to come.

Dataset Information

A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets