1,605
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation

Exercise-based rehabilitation in and with nature: a scoping review mapping available interventions

ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon & ORCID Icon show all
Article: 2267083 | Received 03 Jul 2023, Accepted 26 Sep 2023, Published online: 15 Oct 2023

Abstract

Introduction

Exercise is an effective component in rehabilitation of a range of chronic conditions. There is a growing interest in the use of exercise-based nature interacted rehabilitation (EBNIR), but an overview of current evidence is missing. The objective of this scoping review was to map existing exercise-based rehabilitation interventions conducted with incidental or intentional nature interaction focusing on its populations, types of outcomes, and theoretical rationale for people with physical and mental disabilities.

Methods

This scoping review identified peer-reviewed publications, registered upcoming trials and grey literature. To map all available knowledge, a comprehensive search of selected databases (MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; Cochrane; Web of Science; Pedro) from inception to October 2022. Data were synthesized in a thematic presentation guided by TIDieR, supplemented by a checklist developed for this study accounting nature incidental or intentional interaction.

Results

Twelve studies including 856 participants met the inclusion criteria. Eleven were completed trials and one was registered in clinicaltrials.gov to be run in 2023. A total of 856 patients were enrolled in the 12 studies (range 18–262, median 50). The included studies had great variation. The incidental or intentional interacted exercise-based interventions consisted of outdoor walks, neck exercises and surfing interventions in patients with physical or mental health conditions.

Conclusions

This scoping review presents an overview of limited and diverse evidence within the field of EBNIR, in patients with physical or mental health conditions. Our review provides an overview that will be helpful in the design of future EBNIR trials.

Introduction

Exercise as part of health prevention, treatment and rehabilitation is supported by extensive research [Citation1–3]. A low level of physical activity is a well-known risk factor for 35 chronic conditions [Citation4]. Targeted exercise and physical activity is an internationally recommended treatment of 26 chronic conditions such as coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, musculoskeletal conditions and depression, as well as being effective in increasing life expectancy having a positive effect on key patient-reported outcomes such as quality of life [Citation5,Citation6]. Exercise-based rehabilitation is an umbrella term covering all types of exercise training and physical activity interventions [Citation5] with the aim to enhance physical and mental function, activities (including behaviour), participation (including quality of life), for patients with any kind of medical disability [Citation7]. An exercise-based rehabilitation intervention is defined as an intervention delivered multiple times with a predetermined aim and possible descriptions of activities performed, environment, individual or group, number of sessions, period of time, duration, intensity, dose, etc. [Citation5]. Exercise-based rehabilitation is primarily carried out in healthcare facilities, which may not always satisfy the needs and preferences of patients [Citation8,Citation9]. Indoor exercise-based interventions are a central part of treatment or rehabilitation across many patient groups, and the use of alternative delivery models has emerged over the last decade. New exercise settings are continuously emerging to boost uptake and participation in exercise-based rehabilitation [Citation10].

The utilization of outdoor and nature settings in rehabilitation has gained more attention in recent years [Citation11]. Rehabilitation interacting with nature is different from traditional rehabilitation as it takes place in and with the outdoor nature environment, like in parks, urban green spaces, gardens and playgrounds, as well as woods and forests, rural and agricultural land, freshwater and inland water, marine and coastal locations, caves and deserts [Citation12,Citation13]. The outdoor nature environment is believed to have therapeutic and restorative effects in itself [Citation14]. Nature-interacted interventions, where nature elements interact with the intervention, are thought to have an even greater rehabilitative effect [Citation15,Citation16] and have been thought to raise adherence to treatment and quality of life [Citation17,Citation18]. Nature-interacted interventions, where the natural environment is significantly interacting with the intervention, are therefore often used in mental health rehabilitation [Citation19,Citation20]. Interactions with nature elements can be fully or partially divided into indirect, incidental or intentional interactions [Citation21,Citation22]. The indirect use of nature elements is often used in exercise-based rehabilitation indoors, where video monitors or even virtual reality glasses, showing waterfalls, forests or mountain tracks, provide a visual nature stage for treadmill runners or stationary bicycles users [Citation23–25]. The incidental interaction between nature and exercise-based rehabilitation occurs when patients are doing physical exercises that often or normally are taking place in indoor rehabilitation facilities, but is moved outdoors. Intentional interactions are activities are defined as such when the patient engages with nature with the intention of doing so, such as climbing hills, gardening, cycling or hiking in selected facilitating or enhancing outdoor surroundings [Citation22].

Nature interacted interventions and their rationale are gradually being adapted into healthcare services and everyday rehabilitation programs by occupational therapists, social workers and psychologists [Citation26–28], in mental, cognitive and behavioural nature-interacting rehabilitation programs [Citation16,Citation29–31]. A similar trend is emerging in exercise-based rehabilitation [Citation10], and the interest for exercise-based interventions incidental or intentional interacted with nature has increased among healthcare providers, landscape designers and planners [Citation32,Citation33]. Yet there is no overview of existing knowledge on prior interventions, populations, outcomes and theoretical rationales [Citation34]. In order to provide an informed base for future work within this field of existing exercise-based rehabilitation interacted with nature, the goal of this scoping review was to map the exercise-based nature interacted rehabilitation (EBNIR), focusing on its interventions, populations, outcome assessments and theoretical rationales for people with physical or mental health conditions.

Methods

The updated PRISMA-ScR for the conduct of scoping reviews provided direction for the review process [Citation35]. For details of the pre-registered study protocol, see Open Science Frameworks: https://osf.io/2ck9h/. The study did not have any direct involvement of animals or human participants; therefore there was no need for ethical approval.

The review was conducted by an interdisciplinary author team with research and clinical backgrounds in physiotherapy and human physiology.

Search strategy

Through preliminary searches, a thorough search strategy was created inspired by previous review articles [Citation34], and improved using synonyms and MeSH/subject headings. The search strategy was developed for MEDLINE and customized for EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Cochrane, Pedro and Web of Science. If possible, all terms were searched as keywords and text words in title and abstract. In addition, grey literature and citation search using articles to find additional material were done in a bidirectional manner [Citation36]. The search strategy for grey literature was conducted in parallel with that for the peer-reviewed literature in Google Scholar using phrase search including words from the matrix [Citation37]. The seven electronic databases were searched on 17–20 October 2022. For further details on search terms for each database, see supplementary material (Supplementary Appendix A, Search Strategy).

Eligibility criteria

The following inclusion criteria formed the search and identification of relevant sources:

  • Study population: Patients, with no restrictions towards specific diagnoses.

  • Concept/phenomena of interest: Intervention/exposure: A structured exercise-based rehabilitation intervention, incidental or intentional interaction with nature. Studies combining an exercise-based rehabilitation with other interventions were included.

Structured exercise-based intervention is defined as an intervention over delivered multiple times with a predetermined aim and intervention program as well as possible descriptions of activities performed, environment, individual/groups, number of sessions, period of time, duration, intensity, dose, etc. The incidental or intentional interaction between nature and the intervention is given when the activity or the goal of the intervention is motivated or guided by nature. Incidental interactions occur when the intervention is physically present in nature for a reason, but without further interweaving between the nature elements and the intervention, as e.g. when lying back exercises for low back pain patients have moved out onto the grass to enjoy the sun, birdsong and the smell of the flowers. Intentional interactions are those in which the intervention has intent to interact with nature and the nature guides and inspires the intervention, as e.g. when the forest paths are chosen for their level differences that are facilitating for the cardiac rehabilitation, or the stones are used as balance step stones, or strengthening elements in shoulder exercises. Rationale for nature interaction intervention must be described.

Source of evidence: Trials using either a qualitative (e.g. focus group interviews) and/or quantitative research (e.g. randomized controlled trial, quasi RCT, pre-post study) design. Opinion pieces, reviews, editorials, conference proceedings or similar, and publication of abstract only were excluded.

  • No publication date restriction was applied.

Source of evidence: Peer-reviewed articles and ongoing registered trials, written in English, Danish, Swedish, Italian or Norwegian. Studies were included if reported in one of these languages.

Selecting evidence

The search results were transferred to COVIDENCE for management and abstract screening, and any duplicate studies were removed. Two review authors (HB, JA) separately performed an initial screening of titles and abstracts in accordance with the eligibility criteria. If the inclusion of an article was unclear, the reviewers (HB, JA) screened the full text; in case of discrepancies, consensus was reached by discussion. In the second independent screening, two reviewers (HB, JA) read full-text versions of identified articles to assess their final inclusion. Once more, agreement was obtained through discussion.

Critical appraisal

Since this is a scoping review, we did not perform a critical appraisal of the included studies, in line with the PRISMA-ScR guidance for conducting scoping reviews [Citation35].

Extracting evidence

Data were extracted by two reviewers (HB, JA), using a template adapted from PRISMA-ScR [Citation35], and the data extraction regarding intervention/exposure was guided by the TIDieR checklist [Citation38] (see ). An additional extraction list was made to account for all outdoor and natural environments in the intervention extraction that were not covered by the TIDieR checklist; this extraction list was made in collaboration with an expert panel consisting of people with experience in developing and delivering nature interacted interventions. Data of specific interest in relation to the intervention were: rationale and the theoretical framework for using nature environment, location properties, and if the intervention was incidental or intentional interacted with the nature environment. Supplementary Appendix 2 shows the data-extraction form, which first included the TIDieR checklist and second the additional checklist for the specific nature and environment interaction information.

Table 1. Data extraction template.

Data were recorded in Excel and entries were cross-checked by the two reviewers (HB and JA) for consistency and accuracy.

Analysis and presentation of results

As described in the methodological guidance for scoping reviews [Citation35], the first author (HB) examined the information and compiled it into a thematic descriptive presentation of the findings and the second reviewer (JA) crosschecked the content. This involved close reading and re-reading of the included papers.

Results

Identification of potential articles

The systematic search in the seven databases revealed 4733 potentially relevant titles/abstracts. No additional papers were found via chain search or search in grey literature [Citation39]. In total, 2022 titles/abstracts were screened after removal of duplicates. One thousand nine hundred and fifty-four articles were excluded. Subsequently, 68 full-text articles were screened for eligibility of which 56 were excluded. Accordingly, a total of 12 papers were included. For further details, see flowchart (see ) [Citation40].

Figure 1. Flowchart of search procedures and study selection. *Records were excluded by human. From: Moher et al. [Citation40].

Figure 1. Flowchart of search procedures and study selection. *Records were excluded by human. From: Moher et al. [Citation40].

Identification of potential articles

Twelve papers met the inclusion criteria [Citation41–52]. presents the summary of findings, lists the key features of the trials and participants, summarizes the interventions, contains the theoretical rationale and shows the characteristics of used outcomes in the included papers (n = 12).

Table 2. Summary of findings.

Table 3. Characteristics of the included studies and participants.

Table 4. Data extraction of interventions.

Table 5. Rationale for interventions.

Table 6. Characteristics of outcome measures.

Characteristics of included articles

The included articles were from Austria [Citation41,Citation43], The Netherlands [Citation50], Spain [Citation45,Citation48], UK [Citation42], Japan [Citation49], China [Citation51], Pakistan [Citation47], Canada [Citation52], USA [Citation46] and South Korea [Citation44], published between 2015 and 2022. One was a qualitative study [Citation42]. One on-going study identified at clinicaltrials.gov. The rest were peer-reviewed interventional effect studies: randomized controlled trials with two arms (n = 5) [Citation45,Citation47,Citation48,Citation51,Citation52] and three arms [Citation43], a randomized cross-over group pilot trial [Citation46], a comparative intervention study without randomization [Citation44], a quasi-experimental design with a control group, no randomization [Citation50] and two within subject experimental studies [Citation41,Citation49], with large variation in the number of included participants (range 19–262, median: 50) (see ).

Characteristics of included patients

A total of 788 patients were enrolled in the 11 completed studies with 259 male and 516 females (missing data on sex, n = 13). Mean age ranging from 19 ± 6.5 to 64 ± 4.0. In addition, 68 participants, 65–80 years of age, are to be enrolled in the clinicaltrials.gov registered study, which has not yet been completed [Citation52].

The diagnoses of the included patients were: low back pain (n = 80), posterior neck pain (n = 64), fibromyalgia (n = 203), depression (n = 22), stress (n = 302), acquired brain injury (n = 18), mild cognitive impairment (n = 68), cancer (n = 19), hypertension (n = 20) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n = 60).

The recruitment of the patients for the studies was via a patient organization (n = 1), advertisement (n = 1), recruitment among patients who came to a healthcare centre (n = 2) and were already enrolled in treatment or rehabilitation (n = 5) (see ).

Characteristics of interventions

The main nature-interacted exercise rehabilitation intervention in the included studies was walking (n = 10). One study used an intervention of surfing-therapy [Citation42] and another used a neck-exercise intervention [Citation44]. The interventions were different regarding frequency and dosage: one study doing two walks on 17 min, comparing one walk in the city with one walk in the forest [Citation49]; Huber et al. with hiking in the Austrian mountains for five days in a row [Citation43]; a walk and exercises for 15 min twice a day for four weeks [Citation51]; Gibbs et al. with a course of 5 weeks with one two-hour session per week [Citation42]; and Noushad et al. provided the most extensive intervention in a 12-week long period of 5 walks per week [Citation47]. For further details, see .

The control or comparison interventions also had a great variety from no intervention [Citation50], to sitting in a forest [Citation47], and to walking indoors in the hospital basement tunnel system [Citation46].

Five of the interventions were carried out by therapists [Citation41–43,Citation48,Citation51]. Two were done by the participants alone [Citation44,Citation47], and in one study, peers who had previously participated in the intervention were in charge of the interventions [Citation46]. In four studies, a coach, a nurse, specially trained staff or researchers without further description delivered the interventions [Citation45,Citation49,Citation50,Citation52]. None of the accountable staff members had received any kind of education or training in nature interacted rehabilitation where nature is integrated in the intervention.

In the surf intervention, the nature surroundings had great impact in the intervention, since the therapy took place in the water at a coast offering access for patients disabled and/or with walking difficulties [Citation42], whereas the neck-exercise intervention had no described interaction with the nature environment [Citation44]. The walking interventions had a great variety of incidental and intentional nature interaction. Incidental interaction – seen as only being the place where the walk took place, with no further description of interaction or meanings of so – was the case in (n = 4) [Citation41,Citation44,Citation46,Citation52]. Intentional nature interaction in the intervention was seen as being aware of hills [Citation43,Citation49], temperature and the nature of the forest [Citation45], with conscious implementation of those factors in the intervention. One study also included the environment in the coaching conversation during the walk [Citation50].

The rationales in the included studies

The rationale for the intervention in included studies was mainly that exercise-based rehabilitation and physical activity interventions have been found to have positive relation to mental and physical health [Citation41–52], as opposed to sedentary behaviour.

The rationales for using the nature environment in the interventions were different. References and reasons for interaction with nature were based on the attention restoration theory in one study [Citation42]. Three studies refer to theories saying that being exposed to natural environments has a stress reductive effect [Citation41,Citation47,Citation50]. Theories of health promotion through forest bathing (n = 2) were seen in two studies [Citation44,Citation48], and there were theories where nature has a role in promoting human health, life happiness and well-being (n = 2) [Citation46,Citation49]. Six studies emphasized the restorative effects of spending time in nature on maintaining attention and concentration [Citation43,Citation45,Citation47,Citation48,Citation50,Citation52].

For further details on the theoretical rationale for exercise and nature interaction in the interventions (see ).

Characteristics of outcomes

Apart from the one study that used semi-structured interviews after the intervention as data collection method [Citation42], all other studies used different quantitative outcome measures. Emotional well-being was the most frequent outcome measured using various tools: EQ VAS [Citation44,Citation52], World Health Organization Well-Being Index [Citation43], SF-36 Feeling Scale [Citation41,Citation48], The Profile of Mood State [Citation49] and The Dutch version of the Four Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire [Citation50]. Pain was also commonly measured by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) [Citation43,Citation44,Citation48], questionnaire [Citation44] and pain-diary [Citation43,Citation45]. Most outcomes were disease specific with a broad variety.

Different measures of quality of life, life satisfaction, depression, stress, mindfulness, self-esteem, concentration and social function were used in all of the 11 included studies using quantitative outcome measures. In the study by López-Pousa et al. [Citation45], the forest’s temperature, luminosity and noise were measured. No other study had any measures regarding the outdoor surroundings.

All studies performed measurements before and after end of intervention. Three studies had a follow-up measurement 3–4 months after the end of the intervention [Citation43,Citation47,Citation52] and two other studies used midterm measurements [Citation48,Citation50]. For further elaboration of used measurements (see ).

Discussion

We found that the available evidence for EBNIR is limited and with a range of different study designs. Available studies are diverse regarding population diagnosis, intervention doses and frequency as well as regarding the outcome measures, aims and methods. The integration of nature in the intervention and the rationale for doing so are described in a very limited manner in most of the studies.

These findings are most useful for gaining a knowledge of the evidence base of EBNIR, and to create a better foundation, rationale and evidence for using exercise-based rehabilitation in nature for people with physical and mental health conditions.

This is the first study to map EBNIR. As expected, several of the existing studies investigating EBNIR include patients with mental disabilities. This is aligned with the growing body of evidence and effect of using the nature environment in nature interacted mental interventions in the sciences of psychology, psychotherapy, body awareness and mindfulness [Citation19,Citation20,Citation53]. Still, we also found seven studies including patient groups with somatic disabilities, such as COPD, cancer and hypertension, where exercise-based rehabilitation in an indoor setting is a central part of treatment and rehabilitation [Citation5]. Significant benefits are reported concerning leisure time physical activity conducted in an outdoor setting, both for the purpose of recreation and for health promotion; this goes for both patients with physical and mental health conditions, respectively [Citation54]. Our study clearly calls for a better information base to conclude if this also is the case for EBNIR.

In general in most of the included studies, it was poorly described how the interventions interacted with nature. Since the nature elements and the environment are believed to have a significant impact on the intervention and effect hereof [Citation9,Citation14–16], it is highly relevant that studies, in detail, describe the nature elements and their interactions with the intervention. Otherwise, the potential effects of interactions between nature and the exercise-based intervention cannot be understood and studied properly.

We only found three studies where the rationale for performing the intervention in and with nature was described. Unfortunately, the only details described were that nature was thought of as having beneficial and recreational effect in patients, without further description of which elements in the nature or how it was used actively in the intervention. The intervention’s interaction with nature could therefore have been either incidental or intentional since neither the nature environment nor how it was interlinked with the intervention was described [Citation43,Citation45,Citation52].

The study by van den Berg and Beute [Citation50] described effects of incidental interaction with nature elements: like how a narrow trail in varying terrain was decisive for less talk and thereby high speed walking, and how paths along fallen and rotten trees gave narratives for letting go of emotions. Information on nature elements, like e.g. materials, equipment, the outdoor setting and how it was meant to be interlink with the exercise interventions, was not specified in the rest of the included studies.

Nevertheless, one study took the therapist education into consideration. The study by Serrat et al. [Citation48] mentioned whether the therapists were educated in integrating the nature in the interventions, which is a subject of interest within EBNIR [Citation55].

Our findings clearly illustrate a need for future studies to closely describe the nature elements and their interaction with the exercise-based intervention. Interactions could for example be described with inspiration from the additional extraction list made for this review. The list was made by an expert panel consisting of people with experience in developing and delivering nature interacted interventions, to account for all outdoor and natural environments in an intervention (see Supplementary Appendix 2). The list needs to undergo further validation, but can until then serve as a template for conducting and assessing nature interaction in exercise-based intervention.

Likewise, it would also be profitable to look at patients’ perceptions of the EBNIR. Only the qualitative study by Gibbs et al. [Citation42] (with patients with acquired brain injury) gave in-depth and explorative knowledge on the perceptions, benefits and harms regarding the intervention in nature surroundings. One patient said: ‘what surf ability has given me is that it has helped me with my coordination, my fitness, getting out of the house, yeah, getting sacked by mother nature really’ [Citation42]. This allows for a greater understanding of what nature can have of a supporting effect in relation to EBNIR.

In general, exploring how exposure to nature impacts the patients’ experience, compliance, motivation, flow and other elements could shed light on whether exercise-based rehabilitation in and with nature provides a better experience than indoors exercise-based rehabilitation. Including The Nature Relatedness Scale [Citation56] or Connectivity to Nature Scale [Citation57] in quantitative trails would be a simple way to collect data on the participants’ experiences.

In the review, we found that the included interventions were very focused on walking – although with some variations in quantity and frequency from 1 single walk to 5 times walking per week in 12 weeks, and from 17 to 60 min. It is somewhat surprising that there were no interventions containing balancing exercises, strength exercises and mobility training, since those exercise components are widely used in the treatment of several mental and physical health conditions [Citation5].

When changing exercise setting to outdoor environment, adaptions are needed to ensure the quality of the intervention. Such adaptions need to undergo strict description to ensure replicability when designing and evaluating complex interventions and when implementing these into evidence-based, clinical settings [Citation38,Citation58]. The increased use of nature interventions could represent a setting that meets the needs, preferences and expectations of a proportion of people with physical and mental health conditions, thereby increasing the likelihood of participation, compliance and health benefits [Citation59]. Yet our findings clearly highlight the need for a better research foundation to understand, design and evaluate exercise-based rehabilitation interacted with nature in people with physical and mental health conditions as part of treatment or rehabilitation.

Strengths and limitations

This scoping review is the first to create an overview of all the literature where physical exercise is performed in nature settings for people with physical and mental disabilities as part of treatment or rehabilitation, following the JBI methodology for scoping reviews searching multiple databases. The strict use of the JBI methodology is an important strength of this article. Preliminary searches revealed that studies to include in this scoping review would be sparse and diverse, and therefore both qualitative and quantitative research designs were included to explore the whole field of trials using EBNIR to create a baseline for the current evidence. Still despite employing a thorough search approach we might have missed relevant studies. In this review, we only address exercise-based intervention conducted with nature interaction [Citation5,Citation7,Citation22] and therefore cannot comment on other types of interventions such as forest bathing [Citation60], For instance, green exercise and green physical activity both contain physical exercise in a natural environment, but typically without structured interventions and outcome measures. Articles of such having no structured interventions or only carried out once [Citation61] have been excluded because of a lack of structured exercise intervention. Further, we were particularly interested in studies providing nature-interacted interventions and having a rationale for this. Therefore, we excluded studies doing exercise outdoors without giving the natural environment a significant impact on the intervention. Future reviews addressing the effect of EBNIR may consider including such studies. This was, however, not the scope for this scoping review.

Conclusions

This scoping review reveals a limited and diverse evidence base within the field of EBNIR in patients with physical or mental health conditions. The rationale and interaction between the nature and the exercise intervention were poorly described, calling for future high-quality trials evaluating the effects of nature interacted exercise interventions to provide the foundation for future applicability in clinical practice and the community. Further, this review provides an important overview of particularly the exercise-based nature interventions interacting with nature that will be helpful in the design of interventions and study protocols for future EBNIR interventions.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: HB, JA, AB, PH, DVP, STS and LHT. Data curation: HB and JA. Formal analysis: HB, JA and LHT. Methodology: HB and LHT. Project administration: HB. Visualization: HB. Writing – original draft: HB. Writing review and editing: HB, JA, PH, AB, STS and LHT. Approval of final manuscript: HB, JA, PH, AB, STS and LHT.

Supplemental material

Supplemental Material

Download MS Word (20.6 KB)

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge Ulrik Sidenius, Sus Corazon and Ulrika Stigsdotter in the collaboration in developing an additional checklist to take into account all outdoor and nature elements and surroundings in the intervention extraction. We also thank Thorbjørn Hein for proofreading and Anne Cathrine Trumpy for Covidence and search support.

Disclosure statement

Mr. Ahler and Drs. Skou and Tang are involved in a nationwide project offering nature-based exercise for people with arthritis. Furthermore, Dr. Skou is the co-developer of the Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark (GLA:D) program, a not-for-profit initiative to implement clinical guidelines in primary care. The authors declare that they have no other conflicts of interest.

Data availability statement

Further data can be shared on request by emailing the corresponding author.

Additional information

Funding

This work has not been supported by any foundation. Drs. Tang, Holm, Skou are funded by a grant from Region Zealand (Exercise First). Dr. Tang is funded by The Danish Health Confederation through the Development and Research Fund for financial support (Project Nr. 2703) and Næstved-Slagelse-Ringsted Hospitals Research Fond, Denmark (Project No. A1277). Dr. Skou is funded by two grants from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program, one from the European Research Council (MOBILIZE, Grant Agreement No. 801790) and the other under Grant Agreement No. 945377 (ESCAPE). Dr. Bricca is funded by the MOBILIZE Grant. Mr. Ahler is funded by a grant from Næstved-Slagelse-Ringsted Hospitals Research Fund, Denmark (Project No. A1293) and The Danish Rheumatism Association, Denmark (Project No. R218-A7997).

References

  • Anderson L, Thompson DR, Oldridge N, et al. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2016(1):1. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001800.pub3.
  • Puhan MA, Gimeno-Santos E, Cates CJ, et al. Pulmonary rehabilitation following exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;12(12):CD005305. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005305.pub4.
  • Giné-Garriga M, Roqué-Fíguls M, Coll-Planas L, et al. Physical exercise interventions for improving performance-based measures of physical function in community-dwelling, frail older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(4):753–17. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2013.11.007.
  • Booth FW, Roberts CK, Laye MJ. Lack of exercise is a major cause of chronic diseases. Comprehens Physiol. 2012;2(2):1143–1211.
  • Pedersen BK, Saltin B. Exercise as medicine – evidence for prescribing exercise as therapy in 26 different chronic diseases. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2015;25(Suppl. 3):1–72. doi: 10.1111/sms.12581.
  • Lee IM, Shiroma EJ, Lobelo F, et al. Effect of physical inactivity on major non-communicable diseases worldwide: an analysis of burden of disease and life expectancy. Lancet. 2012;380(9838):219–229. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61031-9.
  • Gutenbrunner C, Ward A, Chamberlain M. White book on physical and rehabilitation medicine in Europe. J Rehabil Med. 2007;39(45 Suppl.):6–47. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0028.
  • Stigsdotter UK, Corazon SS, Sidenius U, et al. Efficacy of nature-based therapy for individuals with stress-related illnesses: randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry. 2018;213(1):404–411. doi: 10.1192/bjp.2018.2.
  • Louise Sofia M, Dorthe Varning P, Claus Vinther N, et al. “It was definitely an eye-opener to me”—people with disabilities’ and health professionals’ perceptions on combining traditional indoor rehabilitation practice with an urban green rehabilitation context. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(11):5994.
  • Passantino A, Dalla Vecchia LA, Corrà U, et al. The future of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for patients with heart failure. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8:709898. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.709898.
  • Hinde S, Bojke L, Coventry P. The cost effectiveness of ecotherapy as a healthcare intervention, separating the wood from the trees. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(21):11599. doi: 10.3390/ijerph182111599.
  • Smith G, Cirach M, Swart W, et al. Characterisation of the natural environment: quantitative indicators across Europe. Int J Health Geogr. 2017;16(1):16. doi: 10.1186/s12942-017-0090-z.
  • Li H, Browning M, Rigolon A, et al. Beyond "bluespace" and "greenspace": a narrative review of possible health benefits from exposure to other natural landscapes. Sci Total Environ. 2023;856(Pt 2):159292. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159292.
  • Pálsdóttir AM, Persson D, Persson B, et al. The journey of recovery and empowerment embraced by nature – clients’ perspectives on nature-based rehabilitation in relation to the role of the natural environment. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11(7):7094–7115. doi: 10.3390/ijerph110707094.
  • Iyendo TO, Uwajeh PC, Ikenna ES. The therapeutic impacts of environmental design interventions on wellness in clinical settings: a narrative review. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2016;24:174–188. doi: 10.1016/j.ctcp.2016.06.008.
  • Pálsdóttir AM, Stigsdotter UK, Persson D, et al. The qualities of natural environments that support the rehabilitation process of individuals with stress-related mental disorder in nature-based rehabilitation. Urban Forest Urban Green. 2018;29:312–321. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2017.11.016.
  • Ballew MT, Omoto AM. Absorption: how nature experiences promote awe and other positive emotions. Ecopsychology. 2018;10(1):26–35. doi: 10.1089/eco.2017.0044.
  • Lacharité-Lemieux M, Brunelle J-P, Dionne IJ. Adherence to exercise and affective responses: comparison between outdoor and indoor training. Menopause. 2015;22(7):731–740. doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000000366.
  • Trøstrup CH, Christiansen AB, Stølen KS, et al. The effect of nature exposure on the mental health of patients: a systematic review. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(7):1695–1703. doi: 10.1007/s11136-019-02125-9.
  • Coventry PA, Brown JE, Pervin J, et al. Nature-based outdoor activities for mental and physical health: systematic review and meta-analysis. SSM Popul Health. 2021;16:100934. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100934.
  • Pryor Anita HN, Parpenter C. Outdoor therapy: benefits, mechanisms and principles for activating health, wellbeing, and healing in nature. Outdoor environmental education in higher education. Hobart (Tasmania): Springer; 2021. p. 123–143.
  • Keniger LE, Gaston KJ, Irvine KN, et al. What are the benefits of interacting with nature? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;10(3):913–935. doi: 10.3390/ijerph10030913.
  • Del Din S, Galna B, Lord S, et al. Falls risk in relation to activity exposure in high-risk older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2020;75(6):1198–1205. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glaa007.
  • Litleskare S, Fröhlich F, Flaten OE, et al. Taking real steps in virtual nature: a randomized blinded trial. Virtual Real. 2022;26(4):1777–1793. doi: 10.1007/s10055-022-00670-2.
  • Wooller JJ, Rogerson M, Barton J, et al. Can simulated green exercise improve recovery from acute mental stress? Front Psychol. 2018;9:2167. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02167.
  • Chaudhury P, Banerjee D. "Recovering with nature": a review of ecotherapy and implications for the COVID-19 pandemic. Front Public Health. 2020;8:604440. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.604440.
  • Vibholm AP, Christensen JR, Pallesen H. Occupational therapists and physiotherapists experiences of using nature-based rehabilitation. Physiother Theory Pract. 2023;39(3):529–539.
  • Vujcic M, Tomicevic-Dubljevic J, Grbic M, et al. Nature based solution for improving mental health and well-being in urban areas. Environ Res. 2017;158:385–392. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2017.06.030.
  • Sus Sola C, Ulrik S, Dorthe Varning P, et al. Psycho-physiological stress recovery in outdoor nature-based interventions: a systematic review of the past eight years of research. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(10):1711.
  • Grahn P, Pálsdóttir AM, Ottosson J, et al. Longer nature-based rehabilitation may contribute to a faster return to work in patients with reactions to severe stress and/or depression. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(11):1310. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14111310.
  • Sudimac S, Sale V, Kühn S. How nature nurtures: amygdala activity decreases as the result of a one-hour walk in nature. Mol Psychiatry. 2022;27(11):4446–4452. doi: 10.1038/s41380-022-01720-6.
  • Alfredsson LL. Åpne dørene for fysioterapeutiske tiltak utendørs! Fysioterapeuten; 2023. Available from: https://www.fysioterapeuten.no/fysioterapeut-fysioterapeuten-fysioterapeuter/apne-dorene-for-fysioterapeutiske-tiltak-utendors/147998
  • Stanhope J, Maric F, Rothmore P, et al. Physiotherapy and ecosystem services: improving the health of our patients, the population, and the environment. Physiother Theory Pract. 2023;39(2):227–240. doi: 10.1080/09593985.2021.2015814.
  • Henriette B, Ulrik S, Line Planck K, et al. Economic evaluation of nature-based therapy interventions—a scoping review. Challenges. 2022;13(1):23.
  • Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Implement. 2021;19(1):3–10. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000277.
  • Hinde S, Spackman E. Bidirectional citation searching to completion: an exploration of literature searching methods. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(1):5–11. doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0205-3.
  • Mahood Q, Eerd DV, Irvin E. Searching for grey literature for systematic reviews: challenges and benefits. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5(3):221–234. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1106.
  • Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348(3):g1687. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1687.
  • Saleh AA, Ratajeski MA, Bertolet M. Grey literature searching for health sciences systematic reviews: a prospective study of time spent and resources utilized. Evid Based Libr Inf Pract. 2014;9(3):28–50. doi: 10.18438/b8dw3k.
  • Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
  • Frühauf A, Niedermeier M, Elliott LR, et al. Acute effects of outdoor physical activity on affect and psychological well-being in depressed patients – a preliminary study. Ment Health Phys Act. 2016;10:4–9. doi: 10.1016/j.mhpa.2016.02.002.
  • Gibbs K, Wilkie L, Jarman J, et al. Riding the wave into wellbeing: a qualitative evaluation of surf therapy for individuals living with acquired brain injury. PLOS One. 2022;17(4):e0266388. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266388.
  • Huber D, Grafetstätter C, Proßegger J, et al. Green exercise and Mg–Ca–SO4 thermal balneotherapy for the treatment of non-specific chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled clinical trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019;20(1):221. doi: 10.1186/s12891-019-2582-4.
  • Kang B, Kim T, Kim MJ, et al. Relief of chronic posterior neck pain depending on the type of forest therapy: comparison of the therapeutic effect of forest bathing alone versus forest bathing with exercise. Ann Rehabil Med. 2015;39(6):957–963. doi: 10.5535/arm.2015.39.6.957.
  • López-Pousa S, Bassets Pagès G, Monserrat-Vila S, et al. Sense of well-being in patients with fibromyalgia: aerobic exercise program in a mature forest—a pilot study. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2015;2015:614783–614789. doi: 10.1155/2015/614783.
  • Miller JM, Sadak KT, Shahriar AA, et al. Cancer survivors exercise at higher intensity in outdoor settings: the GECCOS trial. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2021;68(5):e28850. doi: 10.1002/pbc.28850.
  • Noushad S, Ansari B, Ahmed S. Effect of nature‐based physical activity on post‐traumatic growth among healthcare providers with post‐traumatic stress. Stress Health. 2022;38(4):813–826. doi: 10.1002/smi.3135.
  • Serrat M, Almirall M, Musté M, et al. Effectiveness of a multicomponent treatment for fibromyalgia based on pain neuroscience education, exercise therapy, psychological support, and nature exposure (NAT-FM): a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. J Clin Med. 2020;9(10):3348. doi: 10.3390/jcm9103348.
  • Song C, Ikei H, Kobayashi M, et al. Effect of forest walking on autonomic nervous system activity in middle-aged hypertensive individuals: a pilot study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;12(3):2687–2699. doi: 10.3390/ijerph120302687.
  • van den Berg AE, Beute F. Walk it off! The effectiveness of walk and talk coaching in nature for individuals with burnout- and stress-related complaints. J Environ Psychol. 2021;76:101641. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101641.
  • Wen Y, Lian L, Xun Z, et al. Effect of a rehabilitation garden on rehabilitation efficacy in elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Pak J Zool. 2020;52(6):2027–2426. doi: 10.17582/journal.pjz/20191204121245.
  • Liu-Ambrose T, University of British Columbia. Supporting aging through green exercise; 2023. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT050363042022
  • Bergenheim A, Ahlborg GJr., Bernhardsson S. Nature-based rehabilitation for patients with long-standing stress-related mental disorders: a qualitative evidence synthesis of patients’ experiences. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(13):6897. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18136897.
  • Manferdelli G, La Torre A, Codella R. Outdoor physical activity bears multiple benefits to health and society. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2019;59(5):868–879. doi: 10.23736/S0022-4707.18.08771-6.
  • Stigsdotter UK, Palsdottir AM, Burls A, et al. Nature-based therapeutic interventions. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2011. p. 309–342.
  • Nisbet E, Zelenski JM, Murphy SA. The Nature Relatedness Scale. Environ Behav. 2009;41(5):715–740. doi: 10.1177/0013916508318748.
  • Mayer F, Frantz CM. The Connectedness to Nature Scale: a measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. J Environ Psychol. 2004;24(4):503–515. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001.
  • Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, et al. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new medical research council guidance. Int J Nurs Stud. 2013;50(5):587–592. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.09.010.
  • Shanahan DF, Astell-Burt T, Barber EA, et al. Nature-based interventions for improving health and wellbeing: the purpose, the people and the outcomes. Sports. 2019;7(6):141. doi: 10.3390/sports7060141.
  • Huang R, Li A, Li Z, et al. Adjunctive therapeutic effects of forest bathing trips on geriatric hypertension: results from an on-site experiment in the Cinnamomum camphora forest environment in four seasons. Forests. 2022;14(1):75. doi: 10.3390/f14010075.
  • Arihiro H, Yoshiaki N, Takuro H. Effects of a single session of walking on physiological and psychological stress in elderly adults: a pilot study. Adv Exerc Sports Physiol. 2011;16(4):109–115.