A recent study examined the effectiveness of so-called Nature-Based Interventions (NBI) in children. The study is a systematic review and meta-analysis (a study of the existing studies) that examined the effectiveness of nature-based interventions (NBIs) for “improving health-related outcomes” in autistic children. Here are the takeaways:
24 studies with a total of 717 autistic children were included. The NBIs evaluated were mostly “recreational therapies” involving activities with horses, adventure programs, surfing, golf, music, art, etc.
Meta-analysis found NBIs were associated with improvements in social communication, behavioural issues like hyperactivity and irritability, and sensory processing like distractibility and sensory sensitivity.
There was limited evidence on the impact of NBIs on emotional functioning and subjective well-being outcomes like quality of life.
The overall quality of evidence was low, with a risk of bias in many studies. The researchers noted that more robust research is needed, especially using randomised trials, assessing long-term impacts, and examining factors like treatment fidelity.
The findings suggest NBIs could be a beneficial supplement to “traditional interventions” to improve functioning. More evidence is needed but they show promise as an alternative approach, especially for sensory, social, and behavioural outcomes.
A glaring omission
This study unfortunately does not provide much detail on the locations or socioeconomic profiles of participants across the various NBIs examined. Funding sources and costs associated with the programmes were also not consistently reported.
NBIs, like equine, adventure, or horticultural therapy, often require specialised facilities, equipment, animals, and trained personnel. The costs to participate often exclude children from lower-income families. This review did not thoroughly investigate or discuss the accessibility and affordability of the interventions.
Only 2 of the 24 included studies provided any socioeconomic data about the participants. And merely 6 studies in total declared their own funding sources - mostly from academic or health research grants. So whilst the expense of these programmes could be limiting, this review unfortunately does not assess the equity implications nor provide enough details on the financial situations of participating children and families.
This glaring omission highlights an extremely valid consideration that warrants greater attention in future research. Ensuring children living in financial hardship can also benefit from NBIs should be a priority. Examining potential funding models to improve affordability would be valuable as well. Understanding any socioeconomic barriers contributing to inequities in access will be important as we continue investigating these alternative “therapies.”
The AutSide is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Do "Nature-Based Interventions" work?
Do "Nature-Based Interventions" work?
Do "Nature-Based Interventions" work?
A recent study examined the effectiveness of so-called Nature-Based Interventions (NBI) in children. The study is a systematic review and meta-analysis (a study of the existing studies) that examined the effectiveness of nature-based interventions (NBIs) for “improving health-related outcomes” in autistic children. Here are the takeaways:
24 studies with a total of 717 autistic children were included. The NBIs evaluated were mostly “recreational therapies” involving activities with horses, adventure programs, surfing, golf, music, art, etc.
Meta-analysis found NBIs were associated with improvements in social communication, behavioural issues like hyperactivity and irritability, and sensory processing like distractibility and sensory sensitivity.
There was limited evidence on the impact of NBIs on emotional functioning and subjective well-being outcomes like quality of life.
The overall quality of evidence was low, with a risk of bias in many studies. The researchers noted that more robust research is needed, especially using randomised trials, assessing long-term impacts, and examining factors like treatment fidelity.
The findings suggest NBIs could be a beneficial supplement to “traditional interventions” to improve functioning. More evidence is needed but they show promise as an alternative approach, especially for sensory, social, and behavioural outcomes.
A glaring omission
This study unfortunately does not provide much detail on the locations or socioeconomic profiles of participants across the various NBIs examined. Funding sources and costs associated with the programmes were also not consistently reported.
NBIs, like equine, adventure, or horticultural therapy, often require specialised facilities, equipment, animals, and trained personnel. The costs to participate often exclude children from lower-income families. This review did not thoroughly investigate or discuss the accessibility and affordability of the interventions.
Only 2 of the 24 included studies provided any socioeconomic data about the participants. And merely 6 studies in total declared their own funding sources - mostly from academic or health research grants. So whilst the expense of these programmes could be limiting, this review unfortunately does not assess the equity implications nor provide enough details on the financial situations of participating children and families.
This glaring omission highlights an extremely valid consideration that warrants greater attention in future research. Ensuring children living in financial hardship can also benefit from NBIs should be a priority. Examining potential funding models to improve affordability would be valuable as well. Understanding any socioeconomic barriers contributing to inequities in access will be important as we continue investigating these alternative “therapies.”
The AutSide is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.