Nature-Based Interventions: A Scoping Review Illuminating the Field's Swift Evolution, Wide Applicability for Health and Well-Being, and the Need for Enhanced Reporting

Although nature-based interventions (NBIs) have been increasingly used to improve human health and quality of life, NBI study terminology, designs, and measures vary greatly. Such variability causes difficulty in assessing the efficacy of NBIs overall. This scoping review (1) ascertains the terminology used to identify NBIs, (2) describes the interventions and their contexts, and (3) describes the methodologies and measurement tools used in NBI studies. The protocol for this study was prospectively registered and published. Study methods followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols Extension for Scoping Reviews. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global for studies on NBIs in humans. Databases were searched from inception to date of search. Eligible studies used intervention or observational designs at the individual level, explored human health and well-being outcomes, and provided an English-language abstract. Animal-based therapies and virtual-reality therapies involving simulated nature were excluded unless an eligible comparator was present. Dual independent screening and single-author data abstraction were conducted. A total of 406 articles comprising 416 reported studies were included. Multiday programs, repeated short-session programs, and single short-session programs comprised the sample. NBI was reported in 36 countries and published as dissertations and peer-reviewed articles in 160 journals. A total of 155 unique NBI names were reported. An array of physiological, psychological, and well-being outcomes were assessed. Reported NBIs were diverse in naming convention, design, setting, and outcome. Recommendations for improved NBI reporting were made. The protocol was prospectively registered in Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/mtzc8).