Despite considerable progress within wilderness and adventure therapy research over the last decade, researchers are still unable to precisely answer why, how, and for whom this treatment modality works. There is also a need for more knowledge regarding the circumstances under which the treatment does not appear to be effective. In this realist synthesis, we attempt to unpack this "black box" of wilderness therapy more specifically, defined as a specialized approach to mental health treatment for adolescents. Through a focused review of the primary qualitative wilderness therapy studies, empirical findings are used to test and refine a key program theory. The synthesis results in a proposed wilderness therapy clinical model and offers informed implications for future theory development, research, and practice.

Objective: To report on the role of nature in outdoor therapies through review and summary of existing systematic and meta-analytic reviews in an effort to articulate a theoretical framework for practice. Materials and methods: An umbrella review was conducted following systematic protocols PRISMA guidelines. Results: Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria and represented five self-identified approaches: nature-based therapies, forest therapy, horticultural therapy, wilderness therapy, and adventure therapy. Clear and comprehensive descriptions of theory, program structure, and activity details with causal links to outcomes were mostly absent. Conclusions: A rigorous and determined program of research is required in order to explicit in-depth theories of change in outdoor therapies. Conversely, or maybe concurrently, a holistic theory of integrated relatedness may be developed as a parallel expression of support for nature in therapy while the explanatory science catches up.

No abstract

Dignity is a universal principle that requires us to treat every person as having worth beyond who a particular person is or what they do. Dignity is a complex and sometimes contested idea, that at times can be compromised in health care and allegedly also within the practice of outdoor therapy. Outdoor therapies comprise a range of therapeutic approaches including nature-based therapy, adventure therapy, animal-assisted therapy, forest therapy, wilderness therapy, surf therapy, and more. Within the literature of outdoor therapies there has been limited research on ethics related to common understandings of care concepts such as relational dignity and human rights. The aim of this paper is therefore to unravel briefly whether dignity in general, and relational qualities of dignified care more particularly, might be a useful concept to apply in order to support an ethical practice in outdoor therapies.

Wilderness therapy has the potential to meet the specific needs of the current adolescent population by providing a rather unique outdoor group treatment. Wilderness therapy is not a new approach to mental health treatment, but its theoretical basis is not yet clearly delineated, in part because of the diversity found across programs and contexts. This article presents a critical realist exploration of a wilderness therapy program that was recently implemented as part of adolescent mental health services in Southern Norway. In this study, we combine fieldwork and interviews for an in-depth investigation of the treatment process, where the objective was to acquire a deeper understanding of the opportunities that arise in the wilderness therapy setting. The therapeutic mechanisms and influential contextual premises found across the ecological, physical, and psychosocial factors of this multidimensional approach to treatment are presented, and their underlying conditions are briefly discussed.

There are few high-quality studies using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the adventure and wilderness therapy literature. Thus, a unison call is heard for more such studies to be carried out. This article presents a Norwegian wilderness therapy research project that planned to incorporate this “gold standard” that is regarded as the most scientific and rigorous approach available. We did not succeed. Mounting challenges led us to discard the RCT altogether and select other methodologies. Here, we account for the ethical, health outcome, practical, and empirical obstacles that we encountered when attempting to randomize at-risk adolescents into experiment and control groups. Our conclusion is that although RCTs may be superior in some aspects, they hold the potential to become bad science when the interventions are as complex and multi-faceted as adventure and wilderness therapy programs.

No abstract

Outdoor therapy and family-based therapy are suggested to be promising interventions for the treatment of mental health problems. The aim of the present scoping review was to systematically map the concept, content, and outcome of combining family- and outdoor-based therapy for children and adolescents with mental health problems. The Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and PRISMA guidelines were applied. Eligible qualitative and quantitative studies were screened, included, and extracted for data. Seven studies were included. Findings from these studies indicated that family-based outdoor therapy programs have a positive impact on family- and peer relationships, adolescent behavior, mental health, self-perceptions (self-concept), school success, social engagement, and delinquency rates. However, participant characteristics, study design, and content and mode of delivery of the interventions varied substantially, hence preventing detailed comparison of outcomes across studies. In addition, most of the studies included few participants and lacked population diversity and comparable control groups. Although important ethical concerns were raised, such as non-voluntary participation in some of the programs, there was a lack of reporting on safety. This review indicates that a combination of family- and outdoor-based therapy may benefit mental health among children and adolescents, but due to the limited number of studies eligible for inclusion and high levels of heterogeneity, it was difficult to draw firm conclusions. Thus, future theory-based studies using robust designs are warranted.