Health and well-being benefits of spending time in forests: systematic review
View/ Open
Author
Oh, Byeongsang
Lee, Kyung Ju
Zaslawski, Chris
Larkey, Linda
Back, Michael
Published Version
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12199-017-0677-9Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Oh, Byeongsang, Kyung Ju Lee, Chris Zaslawski, Albert Yeung, David Rosenthal, Linda Larkey, and Michael Back. 2017. “Health and well-being benefits of spending time in forests: systematic review.” Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine 22 (1): 71. doi:10.1186/s12199-017-0677-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12199-017-0677-9.Abstract
Background: Numerous studies have reported that spending time in nature is associated with the improvement of various health outcomes and well-being. This review evaluated the physical and psychological benefits of a specific type of exposure to nature, forest therapy. Method A literature search was carried out using MEDLINE, PubMed, ScienceDirect, EMBASE, and ProQuest databases and manual searches from inception up to December 2016. Key words: “Forest” or “Shinrin -Yoku” or “Forest bath” AND “Health” or “Wellbeing”. The methodological quality of each randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed according to the Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) tool. Results: Six RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Participants’ ages ranged from 20 to 79 years. Sample size ranged from 18 to 99. Populations studied varied from young healthy university students to elderly people with chronic disease. Studies reported the positive impact of forest therapy on hypertension (n = 2), cardiac and pulmonary function (n = 1), immune function (n = 2), inflammation (n = 3), oxidative stress (n = 1), stress (n = 1), stress hormone (n = 1), anxiety (n = 1), depression (n = 2), and emotional response (n = 3). The quality of all studies included in this review had a high ROB. Conclusion: Forest therapy may play an important role in health promotion and disease prevention. However, the lack of high-quality studies limits the strength of results, rendering the evidence insufficient to establish clinical practice guidelines for its use. More robust RCTs are warranted.Other Sources
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5664422/pdf/Terms of Use
This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAACitable link to this page
http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:34493132
Collections
- HMS Scholarly Articles [17937]
Contact administrator regarding this item (to report mistakes or request changes)