4.3 Review

The Effects of Forest Therapy on Immune Function

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18168440

Keywords

forest therapy; adults; immune function

Funding

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korean government (MSIT) [NRF-2019R1F1A1060253]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The systematic review on the effects of forest therapy program on adult immune function showed that such interventions have a positive impact on immune system. However, more randomized controlled trials are needed for further validation.
We conducted a systematic review of the effects of a forest therapy program on adults' immune function. We used PICO-SD (participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, study design) to identify key items. The participants were adults over the age of 18 and the intervention was forest therapy. Our comparisons included studies that comparatively analyzed urban groups or groups that did not participate in forest therapy intervention. Cases without control groups were also included. Immunological outcome measures were included in measuring intervention outcomes. All experimental studies, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-equivalent control group designs (non-RCTs), and one-group pretest-posttest design were included in the study design. A total of 13 studies were included for comparison. Forest therapy programs were divided into lodging-type and session-type programs. The representative measures for evaluating the effects of immune function were the number of NK cells, the cytotoxic activity of NK cells, and cytotoxic effector molecules. Most studies reported improvement in these measures when comparing values after intervention with values before the forest therapy intervention. Therefore, forest therapy has been found to be effective in improving immune function. More RCT studies on the effects of forest therapy on immune function are necessary.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available