Despite extensive evidence of the restorative effects of nature, the potential vitalizing effects of connecting with nature are yet understudied, particularly in higher education settings. University students face high levels of stress and anxiety, and may benefit from nature-based interventions that enhance positive states such as vitality. Using preliminary data from a pilot randomized controlled study with qualitative interviews, we explored the psychological experiences associated with a brief walk either in nature or an urban environment in a sample of 13 university students. The qualitative thematic analysis revealed that walking in nature was a more energizing and vitalizing experience than the urban walk. The nature walk was also found to have both affective and cognitive enhancing effects on participants. Our study highlights the usefulness of exploring subjective psychological experiences of interacting with nature, as well as supporting its restorative potential. Implications for further research and interventions are discussed.

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.

Purpose: Savouring interventions aim to amplify the intensity and duration of positive feelings and positive affect. Research has shown that the potential benefits of savouring include the promotion of psychological well-being and diminution of negative affective states. Savouring strategies may be particularly useful amongst clinical populations in changing biobehavioural processes which can strengthen an individual’s propensity to exert control over how to develop, intensify and promote psychological well-being, while simultaneously mitigating negative affective states. This paper outlines a protocol for a systematic review that will be used to identify, critically appraise and synthesise findings of studies examining the effectiveness of savouring interventions in adult clinical populations. Savouring interventions will be defined broadly, operationalised as any savouring strategy focusing on past, present or future events or experiences whereby participants are instructed to attend to and amplify positive affect relating to same. The goal of our review is to include the extent of the literature on this topic and contribute to the overall evidence to support savouring interventions. Methods: This protocol is carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Protocols Guidelines. The protocol has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023404857). The databases PsycINFO, PubMed, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and Scopus will be searched alongside a search of grey literature. An examination of the first 200 papers on Google Scholar will also be done to identify relevant papers. Studies describing randomised controlled trials evaluating the effects of savouring interventions as described within this article on adult clinical populations will be included in the review. Outcomes will include well-being, quality of life, depression, anxiety or stress. Study selection and data extraction will be completed by three independent reviewers to reduce risk of bias. Interrater percentage agreement and interrater reliability will be reported on same. The quality of studies will be assessed using criteria based on the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias and the Jadad scale. A narrative synthesis with tables of study characteristics will be provided. Separate considerations of the three time perspectives of savouring interventions (past-focused, present-focused, and future-focused) will also be described. Conclusions: This systematic review will provide important clinical insights into the potential efficacy of savouring interventions when working with adult clinical samples.

Aims: This research synthesis protocol addresses the question: what is the evidence concerning measurement properties of dental patient reported outcome measures (dPROMs), and regarding the real-world value of dPROMs, and where are the gaps in this evidence? Evidence mapping will systematically examine reviews of quantitative dPROMs used to assess the impact of oral health on the quality of life of dental patients and research participants. Evidence gaps where future research or systematic reviews are required will be identified. Materials and methods: This protocol accords with the PRISMA-P guideline. Open Science Framework Registration https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/RZD3N. Biomedical and grey literature databases will be searched, adapting the same search strategy. Published or unpublished reviews evaluating any dPROM will be considered for inclusion. There will be no restriction by date, setting, or language. AMSTAR2 and ROBIS will evaluate risk of bias. Psychometric criteria will be adapted from COSMIN. Data will be summarised separately for specific populations and conditions. Discussion: The findings will enable clinicians and researchers to identify methodologically robust dPROMs, appropriate for use with relevant populations and conditions. Implications for real-world practice and research will be discussed.