Speaker
Description
The potential of contact with nature as a health intervention has gained significant momentum. However, the credibility of supporting evidence is contingent upon the quality of study designs, which differ in their biases and capacity to accurately assess the true effect of nature exposure on health outcomes. In this study, we empirically assessed the prevalence of various study designs used to assess relationships between nature exposure and mental health outcomes. We examined geographical, temporal and disciplinary variations in the definitions of “nature exposure” and “mental health”, as well as the diverse methods used to track changes in these factors. Our initial findings indicated that while the number of uncontrolled and observational study designs from North America was relatively small, these studies had a substantially larger combined sample size compared to others. We also identified a tradeoff between the spatial resolution of nature exposure measures and health outcomes. Crucially, complex designs (that arguably yield more credible results) varied in their control for confounders. We conclude with a discussion on the implications for evidence synthesis, and provide recommendations to broaden the portfolio of emerging research needs, emphasizing the importance of improving study design quality to enhance the credibility of findings in this field.
| Status Group | Postdoctoral Researcher |
|---|
