户外运动与室内运动的急性效应:系统回顾与荟萃分析。

IF 6.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Health Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-08-06 DOI:10.1080/17437199.2024.2383758
Luke Peddie, Vincent Gosselin Boucher, E Jean Buckler, Matt Noseworthy, Brook L Haight, Spencer Pratt, Boaz Injege, Michael Koehle, Guy Faulkner, Eli Puterman
{"title":"户外运动与室内运动的急性效应:系统回顾与荟萃分析。","authors":"Luke Peddie, Vincent Gosselin Boucher, E Jean Buckler, Matt Noseworthy, Brook L Haight, Spencer Pratt, Boaz Injege, Michael Koehle, Guy Faulkner, Eli Puterman","doi":"10.1080/17437199.2024.2383758","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Exercise and nature exposure are independently recognised for their positive relationship with health, but their combined effects are not fully understood. The present review summarises the evidence that compares physiological and perceptual differences of a single bout of exercise performed outdoors versus indoors. Nine databases were searched for articles published before March 2021 which utilised controlled designs to assess at least one physiological outcome during or after a single acute bout of outdoor exercise. When appropriate, quantitative analyses were completed. Quality of articles was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. The findings of 38 articles (Total <i>N</i> = 1168) were examined. Participants were primarily healthy. Summarised outcomes included objective exercise intensity, perceived exertion, performance, neuroendocrine and metabolic responses, cardiovascular responses, thermoregulation, enjoyment, intention for future exercise, and perceptions of the environment. Outdoor environments increased enjoyment (<i>N</i> = 234, <i>K</i> = 10, <i>g</i> = 1.24, 95% CI = [0.59, 1.89], <i>p</i> < 0.001). Findings for remaining outcomes were non-significant or inconclusive and challenging to interpret due to high risk of bias. Overall, outdoor exercise appears to feel more enjoyable than indoor exercise when matched for intensity, with equivocal physiological benefit.</p>","PeriodicalId":48034,"journal":{"name":"Health Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"1-31"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Acute effects of outdoor versus indoor exercise: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Luke Peddie, Vincent Gosselin Boucher, E Jean Buckler, Matt Noseworthy, Brook L Haight, Spencer Pratt, Boaz Injege, Michael Koehle, Guy Faulkner, Eli Puterman\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17437199.2024.2383758\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Exercise and nature exposure are independently recognised for their positive relationship with health, but their combined effects are not fully understood. The present review summarises the evidence that compares physiological and perceptual differences of a single bout of exercise performed outdoors versus indoors. Nine databases were searched for articles published before March 2021 which utilised controlled designs to assess at least one physiological outcome during or after a single acute bout of outdoor exercise. When appropriate, quantitative analyses were completed. Quality of articles was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. The findings of 38 articles (Total <i>N</i> = 1168) were examined. Participants were primarily healthy. Summarised outcomes included objective exercise intensity, perceived exertion, performance, neuroendocrine and metabolic responses, cardiovascular responses, thermoregulation, enjoyment, intention for future exercise, and perceptions of the environment. Outdoor environments increased enjoyment (<i>N</i> = 234, <i>K</i> = 10, <i>g</i> = 1.24, 95% CI = [0.59, 1.89], <i>p</i> < 0.001). Findings for remaining outcomes were non-significant or inconclusive and challenging to interpret due to high risk of bias. Overall, outdoor exercise appears to feel more enjoyable than indoor exercise when matched for intensity, with equivocal physiological benefit.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48034,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-31\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2024.2383758\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2024.2383758","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

运动和亲近大自然因其与健康的积极关系而被单独认可,但它们的综合效应还没有得到充分了解。本综述总结了比较单次户外运动与室内运动在生理和感知方面差异的证据。我们在九个数据库中搜索了 2021 年 3 月之前发表的文章,这些文章采用对照设计,评估了单次急性户外运动期间或之后的至少一种生理结果。在适当的情况下,完成了定量分析。文章质量采用 Cochrane 偏倚风险评估工具进行评估。共研究了 38 篇文章(总 N = 1168)的结果。参与者主要为健康人。总结的结果包括客观运动强度、感知消耗、运动表现、神经内分泌和新陈代谢反应、心血管反应、体温调节、乐趣、未来运动意向以及对环境的感知。户外环境增加了乐趣(N = 234,K = 10,g = 1.24,95% CI = [0.59,1.89],p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Acute effects of outdoor versus indoor exercise: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Exercise and nature exposure are independently recognised for their positive relationship with health, but their combined effects are not fully understood. The present review summarises the evidence that compares physiological and perceptual differences of a single bout of exercise performed outdoors versus indoors. Nine databases were searched for articles published before March 2021 which utilised controlled designs to assess at least one physiological outcome during or after a single acute bout of outdoor exercise. When appropriate, quantitative analyses were completed. Quality of articles was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. The findings of 38 articles (Total N = 1168) were examined. Participants were primarily healthy. Summarised outcomes included objective exercise intensity, perceived exertion, performance, neuroendocrine and metabolic responses, cardiovascular responses, thermoregulation, enjoyment, intention for future exercise, and perceptions of the environment. Outdoor environments increased enjoyment (N = 234, K = 10, g = 1.24, 95% CI = [0.59, 1.89], p < 0.001). Findings for remaining outcomes were non-significant or inconclusive and challenging to interpret due to high risk of bias. Overall, outdoor exercise appears to feel more enjoyable than indoor exercise when matched for intensity, with equivocal physiological benefit.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Psychology Review
Health Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
21.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The publication of Health Psychology Review (HPR) marks a significant milestone in the field of health psychology, as it is the first review journal dedicated to this important and rapidly growing discipline. Edited by a highly respected team, HPR provides a critical platform for the review, development of theories, and conceptual advancements in health psychology. This prestigious international forum not only contributes to the progress of health psychology but also fosters its connection with the broader field of psychology and other related academic and professional domains. With its vital insights, HPR is a must-read for those involved in the study, teaching, and practice of health psychology, behavioral medicine, and related areas.
期刊最新文献
The prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder symptomatology and diagnosis in burn survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Yoga as an intervention for stress: a meta-analysis. Analytical decisions pose moral questions. Components of multiple health behaviour change interventions for patients with chronic conditions: a systematic review and meta-regression of randomized trials. Identifying the psychosocial barriers and facilitators associated with the uptake of genetic services for hereditary cancer syndromes: a systematic review of qualitative studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1