影响旨在改善心理健康和福祉的基于自然的干预措施(NBIs)有效性的因素:总括性审查

IF 10.3 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Topaz Shrestha , Cheryl Voon Yi Chi , Marica Cassarino , Sarah Foley , Zelda Di Blasi
{"title":"影响旨在改善心理健康和福祉的基于自然的干预措施(NBIs)有效性的因素:总括性审查","authors":"Topaz Shrestha ,&nbsp;Cheryl Voon Yi Chi ,&nbsp;Marica Cassarino ,&nbsp;Sarah Foley ,&nbsp;Zelda Di Blasi","doi":"10.1016/j.envint.2024.109217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Several systematic reviews support nature–based interventions (NBIs) as a mechanism of enhancing mental health and wellbeing. However, the available evidence for the effectiveness of these interventions is fragmentary and mixed. The heterogeneity of existing evidence and significant fragmentation of knowledge within the field make it difficult to draw firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness of NBIs. This can only limit the development of interventions to support personal and planetary wellbeing, potentially resulting in ineffective and ill–targeted investment decisions. These concerns have hindered the translation of research evidence into practice and guidelines are urgently required to assist researchers, practitioners and policymakers in developing interventions to promote environmental stewardship and meet the health needs of diverse communities. A higher-order or <em>meta</em>-level synthesis is required to make sense of this evidence. This umbrella review synthesises evidence on the barriers and enablers to nature–based interventions through a summative review of existing published systematic reviews and <em>meta</em>-analyses. A systematic search in PsycINFO, PubMed, Greenfile, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, Academic Search Complete (EBSCO), Environment Complete (EBSCO), Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Health Policy Reference Centre and Google Scholar was performed. This is a mixed method review, and systematic reviews with both quantitative and qualitative data synthesis were included. 64 systematic reviews were included in the synthesis. The descriptive data, extracted from each study, forms an overview of the characteristics of available evidence on nature-based interventions. A narrative synthesis is used to present the potential factors influencing the outcomes of NBIs. The risk of bias of the systematic reviews was assessed using a 16-item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) checklist. Directions for future research, potential quality needs and recommendations for future research, policymaking, and practice are discusssed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":308,"journal":{"name":"Environment International","volume":"196 ","pages":"Article 109217"},"PeriodicalIF":10.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Factors influencing the effectiveness of nature-based interventions (NBIs) aimed at improving mental health and wellbeing: An umbrella review\",\"authors\":\"Topaz Shrestha ,&nbsp;Cheryl Voon Yi Chi ,&nbsp;Marica Cassarino ,&nbsp;Sarah Foley ,&nbsp;Zelda Di Blasi\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.envint.2024.109217\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Several systematic reviews support nature–based interventions (NBIs) as a mechanism of enhancing mental health and wellbeing. However, the available evidence for the effectiveness of these interventions is fragmentary and mixed. The heterogeneity of existing evidence and significant fragmentation of knowledge within the field make it difficult to draw firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness of NBIs. This can only limit the development of interventions to support personal and planetary wellbeing, potentially resulting in ineffective and ill–targeted investment decisions. These concerns have hindered the translation of research evidence into practice and guidelines are urgently required to assist researchers, practitioners and policymakers in developing interventions to promote environmental stewardship and meet the health needs of diverse communities. A higher-order or <em>meta</em>-level synthesis is required to make sense of this evidence. This umbrella review synthesises evidence on the barriers and enablers to nature–based interventions through a summative review of existing published systematic reviews and <em>meta</em>-analyses. A systematic search in PsycINFO, PubMed, Greenfile, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, Academic Search Complete (EBSCO), Environment Complete (EBSCO), Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Health Policy Reference Centre and Google Scholar was performed. This is a mixed method review, and systematic reviews with both quantitative and qualitative data synthesis were included. 64 systematic reviews were included in the synthesis. The descriptive data, extracted from each study, forms an overview of the characteristics of available evidence on nature-based interventions. A narrative synthesis is used to present the potential factors influencing the outcomes of NBIs. The risk of bias of the systematic reviews was assessed using a 16-item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) checklist. Directions for future research, potential quality needs and recommendations for future research, policymaking, and practice are discusssed.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":308,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environment International\",\"volume\":\"196 \",\"pages\":\"Article 109217\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environment International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024008043\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environment International","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024008043","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

一些系统综述支持基于自然的干预措施(nbi)作为一种增强心理健康和福祉的机制。然而,这些干预措施有效性的现有证据是零碎和混杂的。现有证据的异质性和该领域内知识的严重碎片化使得很难得出关于nbi有效性的确切结论。这只会限制支持个人和地球福祉的干预措施的发展,可能导致无效和目标不明确的投资决策。这些关切阻碍了将研究证据转化为实践,迫切需要指导方针,以协助研究人员、从业人员和决策者制定干预措施,促进环境管理,满足不同社区的健康需求。需要更高层次或元层次的综合来理解这些证据。本总括性综述通过对现有已发表的系统综述和荟萃分析的总结性综述,综合了有关基于自然的干预措施的障碍和促进因素的证据。系统检索PsycINFO、PubMed、Greenfile、Web of Science、Embase、Scopus、Academic search Complete (EBSCO)、Environment Complete (EBSCO)、Cochrane Library、CINAHL、Health Policy Reference Centre和谷歌Scholar。这是一项混合方法综述,包括定量和定性数据综合的系统综述。64篇系统综述被纳入综合研究。从每项研究中提取的描述性数据形成了对基于自然的干预措施的现有证据特征的概述。本文采用叙事综合的方法,阐述了影响nbi预后的潜在因素。系统评价的偏倚风险采用16项多系统评价评估2 (AMSTAR2)清单进行评估。讨论了未来研究的方向、潜在的质量需求以及对未来研究、政策制定和实践的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Factors influencing the effectiveness of nature-based interventions (NBIs) aimed at improving mental health and wellbeing: An umbrella review

Factors influencing the effectiveness of nature-based interventions (NBIs) aimed at improving mental health and wellbeing: An umbrella review

Factors influencing the effectiveness of nature-based interventions (NBIs) aimed at improving mental health and wellbeing: An umbrella review
Several systematic reviews support nature–based interventions (NBIs) as a mechanism of enhancing mental health and wellbeing. However, the available evidence for the effectiveness of these interventions is fragmentary and mixed. The heterogeneity of existing evidence and significant fragmentation of knowledge within the field make it difficult to draw firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness of NBIs. This can only limit the development of interventions to support personal and planetary wellbeing, potentially resulting in ineffective and ill–targeted investment decisions. These concerns have hindered the translation of research evidence into practice and guidelines are urgently required to assist researchers, practitioners and policymakers in developing interventions to promote environmental stewardship and meet the health needs of diverse communities. A higher-order or meta-level synthesis is required to make sense of this evidence. This umbrella review synthesises evidence on the barriers and enablers to nature–based interventions through a summative review of existing published systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A systematic search in PsycINFO, PubMed, Greenfile, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, Academic Search Complete (EBSCO), Environment Complete (EBSCO), Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Health Policy Reference Centre and Google Scholar was performed. This is a mixed method review, and systematic reviews with both quantitative and qualitative data synthesis were included. 64 systematic reviews were included in the synthesis. The descriptive data, extracted from each study, forms an overview of the characteristics of available evidence on nature-based interventions. A narrative synthesis is used to present the potential factors influencing the outcomes of NBIs. The risk of bias of the systematic reviews was assessed using a 16-item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) checklist. Directions for future research, potential quality needs and recommendations for future research, policymaking, and practice are discusssed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Environment International
Environment International 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
21.90
自引率
3.40%
发文量
734
审稿时长
2.8 months
期刊介绍: Environmental Health publishes manuscripts focusing on critical aspects of environmental and occupational medicine, including studies in toxicology and epidemiology, to illuminate the human health implications of exposure to environmental hazards. The journal adopts an open-access model and practices open peer review. It caters to scientists and practitioners across all environmental science domains, directly or indirectly impacting human health and well-being. With a commitment to enhancing the prevention of environmentally-related health risks, Environmental Health serves as a public health journal for the community and scientists engaged in matters of public health significance concerning the environment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信