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.

While there is evidence for the effects of positive psychology interventions (PPIs) in the Western world, we know little about their effects on Arab cultures. This review aimed to assess the effects of PPIs on well-being and mental health across Arab countries. Systematic searches of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies investigating PPIs in Arabia were conducted in six English and Arabic databases from the inception of positive psychology in 1998 to 28 February 2022. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk-ofbias tools. The protocol was published in the BMJ Open. Forty-four studies from 10 Arab countries (n = 3598 participants) were included. Of these, 12 were RCTs and 32 were quasi-experimental. The studies mainly focused on adults (73%) and healthy populations (86%). PPIs included mindfulness, positive thinking, strengths, hope, optimism, self-compassion, positive traits, and multiple PPIs. Nearly all studies (91%) mentioned cultural adaptation; however, little detail was given. This is the first review in Arabia. PPIs appear to be effective for promoting well-being and reducing mental health issues. However, there were

IntroductionDespite the growing volume of published studies on the effects of positive psychology interventions (PPIs), little is known about their effectiveness outside of Western countries, particularly in Arab countries. As the effectiveness of PPIs in this region remains unclear, a systematic review focusing on this area of research can offer a valuable contribution. Here, we present a protocol for the first systematic review that aims to examine the effects of PPIs on increasing well-being, quality of life and resilience and decreasing depression, anxiety and stress for both health and clinical, child and adult populations in Arab countries.Methods and analysisThis protocol is carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines. A systematic literature search for studies up to 30 April 2021 will be conducted in the following electronic databases: PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, Dar Al Mandumah and Al Manhal. Experimental/quasi-experimental quantitative studies evaluating the effects of PPIs on healthy and clinical participants of all ages in the 22 Arab countries will be included. Outcomes will include psychological effects of PPIs on dimensions related to well-being (eg, happiness), quality of life, resilience, depression, anxiety and stress. The risk of bias will be evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. A narrative synthesis with tables of study characteristics will be provided. A meta-analysis will be included if outcomes allow; in this instance, subgroups analysis will be conducted, depending on the data gathered, to examine differences in effect sizes based on age group, population type, duration of intervention and type of intervention.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was not required for the performance of this systematic review. We intend to publish the study in a peer-reviewed journal and share the findings at relevant conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020198092.

Several systematic reviews support the use of 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 mixed method umbrella review aims to synthesise evidence on the effectiveness of 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 will be performed from inception to present. The search strategy will aim to find published systematic reviews of nature–based interventions (NBIs) where improving health and wellbeing is an explicit goal. This is a mixed method review, and systematic reviews with both quantitative and qualitative data synthesis will be considered. Two authors will independently perform the literature search, record screening, data extraction, and quality assessment of each included systematic review and meta-analysis. The individual qualitative and quantitative syntheses will be conducted in parallel and combined in an overarching narrative synthesis. The quantitative evidence will be used to assess the strength and direction of the effect of nature–based interventions on mental health and wellbeing outcomes. Evidence drawn from qualitative studies will be analysed and synthesised to understand the various pathways to engagement, involvement process and experiential factors that may mediate experiences. The risk of bias of the systematic reviews will be assessed using a 16-item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) checklist. Trail registration: This review is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022329179).

Several systematic reviews support the use of 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. The aim of this mixed method umbrella review is to synthesise evidence on the effectiveness of 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 Center and Google Scholar will be performed from inception to May 2022. The search strategy will aim to find published systematic reviews of nature–based interventions (NBIs) where improving health and wellbeing is an explicit goal. This is a mixed method review and systematic reviews with both quantitative and qualitative data synthesis will be considered. Two authors will independently perform the literature search, record screening, data extraction, and quality assessment of each included systematic review and meta-analysis. The individual qualitative and quantitative syntheses will be conducted in parallel and then combined in an overarching narrative synthesis. The quantitative evidence will be used to assess the strength and direction of effect of nature–based interventions on mental health and wellbeing outcomes. Evidence drawn from qualitative studies will be analysed and synthesised to understand the various pathways to engagement, process of involvement and experiential factors which may mediate experiences. The risk of bias of the systematic reviews will be assessed using a 16-item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) checklist. This review is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022329179).