posted on 2020-05-18, 09:22authored bySusan Gritzka, Tadhg E. MacIntyre, Denise Dörfel, Jordan L Baker-Blanc, Giovanna Calogiuri
Mental health in the workplace is a societal challenge with serious economical and human
costs. Most prevalent mental disorders in the workforce (e.g., depression), however, are
preventable. There is widespread agreement about the favorable effects of nature
exposure and consequently, nature-based interventions (NBI) in the workplace have
been proposed as a cost-effective approach to promote good health among employees.
The objective of the present study was to systematically review scientific evidence on the
effectiveness of NBI to promote mental health and well-being among actual employees in
actual workplace settings. The review was conducted and presented in accordance with
the PRISMA guidelines. The literature search was performed on five databases (PubMed,
Embase, CENTRAL, CINHAL, and PsycINFO), hand-searching of field-specific journals,
and the reference lists of retrieved papers over the past 5 years up to November (13th,
2018). Studies were eligible for inclusion if they (i) were randomized or nonrandomized
controlled trials; (ii) comprised samples of actual employees; (iii) implemented a
workplace-based intervention with exposure to nature; (iv) included comparison
conditions that displayed a clear contrast to NBIs; and (v) investigated the quantitative
effects on mental health or well-being. No restrictions on type of employees or workplace,
publication period, or language of the publication were set. Risk of bias was assessed
using the Cochrane’s RoB2 tool. Narrative synthesis was performed due to large
heterogeneity in outcome variables. Of the 510 articles identified, 10 NBIs (nine papers)
met the eligibility criteria. The outcomes were grouped in five categories: (i) mental health
indices, (ii) cognitive ability, (iii) recovery and restoration, (iv) work and life satisfaction, and (v) psychophysiological indicators. Narrative synthesis indicates consistently positive
effects on mental health indices and cognitive ability, while mixed results were found for
the other outcome categories. Caution must be given when interpreting the current
evidence in this emerging research field because of the diversity of NBIs and the overall
high risk of bias in the individual studies. Although in this field often researchers have to
balance scientific rigor and ecological validity, there is a need for large, well-designed and
rigorously conducted trials grounded in contemporary theories.