Leveraging and exercising caution with ChatGPT and other generative artificial intelligence tools in environmental psychology research.

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) is an emerging and disruptive technology that has attracted considerable interest from researchers and educators across various disciplines. We discuss the relevance and concerns of ChatGPT and other GAI tools in environmental psychology research. We propose three use categories for GAI tools: integrated and contextualized understanding, practical and flexible implementation, and two-way external communication. These categories are exemplified by topics such as the health benefits of green space, theory building, visual simulation, and identifying practical relevance. However, we also highlight the balance of productivity with ethical issues, as well as the need for ethical guidelines, professional training, and changes in the academic performance evaluation systems. We hope this perspective can foster constructive dialogue and responsible practice of GAI tools.

'It Feels Really Vulnerable and a Little Dangerous': When Words Are Not Enough.

Imagine being given the immense responsibility and gift as a researcher to deliver a person's final nature experience. People living with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are often sheltered from nature experiences due to their disease status; however, they have rich memories of past nature experiences. The goals of this overall journey of co-creation were two-fold: (1) co-create personalized nature-based utilizing immersive 360-degree virtual reality (VR) experiences based on participants' experiences in outdoor spaces; (2) utilize a narrative approach to explore the lived realities of people living with severe COPD. Throughout this collaborative research process, I made home visits, phone calls, and many trips to four people's personalized outdoor places in the Upstate of South Carolina. In doing so, I lived the experience of person-centered research. This essay focuses specifically on one participant, David, his wife and caregiver, Anne, and the co-creation of David's last virtual trip to his most cherished places in nature. Re-gifting David's last nature experience in his favorite outdoor places profoundly changed my research approach. This essay considers how I reconciled the disconnect between the "scientific" language used in health research and the lived experience of being a researcher during end-of-life processes, specifically attending to the terms: attrition, participant, and researcher.

The paradox of high greenness and poor health in rural Central Appalachia.

While many studies have found positive correlations between greenness and human health, rural Central Appalachia is an exception. The region has high greenness levels but poor health. The purpose of this commentary is to provide a possible explanation for this paradox: three sets of factors overwhelming or attenuating the health benefits of greenness. These include environmental (e.g., steep typography and limited access to green space used for outdoor recreation), social (e.g., chronic poverty, declining coal industry, and limited access to healthcare), and psychological and behavioral factors (e.g., perceptions about health behaviors, healthcare, and greenness). The influence of these factors on the expected health benefits of greenness should be considered as working hypotheses for future research. Policymakers and public health officials need to ensure that greenness-based interventions account for contextual factors and other determinants of health to ensure these interventions have the expected health benefits.

The economics of nature's healing touch: A systematic review and conceptual framework of green space, pharmaceutical prescriptions, and healthcare expenditure associations.

Green spaces play a crucial role in promoting sustainable and healthy lives. Recent evidence shows that green space also may reduce the need for healthcare, prescription medications, and associated costs. This systematic review provides the first comprehensive assessment of the available literature examining green space exposure and its associations with healthcare prescriptions and expenditures. We applied Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines to search MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science for observational studies published in English through May 6, 2023. A quality assessment of the included studies was conducted using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) tool, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) assessment was used to evaluate the overall quality of evidence. Our search retrieved 26 studies that met the inclusion criteria and were included in our review. Among these, 20 studies (77 % of the total) showed beneficial associations of green space exposure with healthcare prescriptions or expenditures. However, most studies had risks of bias, and the overall strength of evidence for both outcomes was limited. Based on our findings and related bodies of literature, we present a conceptual framework to explain the possible associations and complex mechanisms underlying green space and healthcare outcomes. The framework differs from existing green space and health models by including upstream factors related to healthcare access (i.e., rurality and socioeconomic status), which may flip the direction of associations. Additional research with lower risks of bias is necessary to validate this framework and better understand the potential for green space to reduce healthcare prescriptions and expenditures.

A Rapid Review of the Role of Virtual Reality in Care Delivery of Palliative Care and Hospice.

Virtual reality (VR) is an emerging technology that can provide a nonpharmacological approach to symptom management for those with serious illnesses. The VR platform offers a unique perspective to connect patients with places and experiences they might otherwise miss. This rapid review aims to present the current literature on the uses and benefits of VR for palliative care and hospice patients. Through a systematic process, we identified 14 articles published between 2018 and 2023 that used VR as an interventional strategy for symptom management. The VR equipment includes a head-mounted display, such as the Oculus Go, and sometimes requires hand controllers or joysticks. Virtual reality software was contained exclusively in the head-mounted displays or required a laptop. Nature scenes, memorable locations, and the solar system are examples of options patients could select for the VR experience. Assessments of the intervention were measured before, during, after, and several hours afterward to evaluate benefits and potential adverse effects. Pain was the predominant symptom assessed in the studies. Overall, most of the studies focused on establishing the safety, efficacy, and feasibility of VR using a single-arm interventional method. Future research should implement randomized controlled trials, increase sample size, and expand to pediatric populations.

Daily exposure to virtual nature reduces symptoms of anxiety in college students.

Exposure to natural environments offers an array of mental health benefits. Virtual reality provides simulated experiences of being in nature when outdoor access is limited. Previous studies on virtual nature have focused mainly on single "doses" of virtual nature. The effects of repeated exposure remain poorly understood. Motivated by this gap, we studied the influence of a daily virtual nature intervention on symptoms of anxiety, depression, and an underlying cause of poor mental health: rumination. Forty college students (58% non-Hispanic White, median age = 19) were recruited from two U.S. universities and randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. Over several weeks, anxious arousal (panic) and anxious apprehension (worry) decreased with virtual nature exposure. Participants identifying as women, past VR users, experienced with the outdoors, and engaged with the beauty in nature benefited particularly strongly from virtual nature. Virtual nature did not help symptoms of anhedonic depression or rumination. Further research is necessary to distinguish when and for whom virtual nature interventions impact mental health outcomes.

Beyond "bluespace" and "greenspace": A narrative review of possible health benefits from exposure to other natural landscapes.

Numerous studies have highlighted the physical and mental health benefits of contact with nature, typically in landscapes characterized by plants (i.e., "greenspace") and water (i.e., "bluespace"). However, natural landscapes are not always green or blue, and the effects of other landscapes are worth attention. This narrative review attempts to overcome this limitation of past research. Rather than focusing on colors, we propose that natural landscapes are composed of at least one of three components: (1) plants (e.g., trees, flowering plants, grasses, sedges, mosses, ferns, and algae), (2) water (e.g., rivers, canals, lakes, and oceans), and/or (3) rocks and minerals, including soil. Landscapes not dominated by plants or liquid-state water include those with abundant solid-state water (e.g., polar spaces) and rocks or minerals (e.g., deserts and caves). Possible health benefits of solid-state water or rock/mineral dominated landscapes include both shorter-term (e.g., viewing images) and longer-term (e.g., living in these landscapes) exposure durations. Reported benefits span improved emotional and mental states and medical treatment resources for respiratory conditions and allergies. Mechanisms underlying the health benefits of exposure consist of commonly discussed theories in the "greenspace" and "bluespace" literature (i.e., instoration and restoration) as well as less discussed pathways in that literature (i.e., post-traumatic growth, self-determination, supportive environment theory, and place attachment). This is the first review to draw attention to the potential salutogenic value of natural landscapes beyond "greenspace" and "bluespace." It is also among the first to highlight the limitations and confusion that result from classifying natural landscapes using color. Since the extant literature on natural landscapes - beyond those with abundant plants or liquid-state water - is limited in regard to quantity and quality, additional research is needed to understand their restorative potential and therapeutic possibilities.

Efficacy of virtual reality assisted guided imagery (VRAGI) in a home setting for pain management in patients with advanced cancer: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with advanced cancer often experience high levels of debilitating pain and pain-related psychological distress. Although there is increasing evidence that non-pharmacological interventions are needed to manage their pain, pharmacologic modalities remain the preferred treatment . Guided imagery is a form of focused relaxation that helps create harmony between the mind and body and has been shown to significantly improve cancer pain. Our study presents Virtual Reality Assisted Guided Imagery (VRAGI) as a complementary treatment modality to manage chronic pain in patients with cancer. We will conduct a randomised controlled trial to test its impact on patients with advanced cancer in a home setting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will recruit 80 patients from Prisma Health, a tertiary-level healthcare centre based in Greenville, South Carolina, USA. The prospective 2×2 randomised controlled trial will randomise participants into four groups: (1) VRAGI, (2) laptop-assisted guided imagery, (3) VR (no guided imagery) and (4) laptop (no guided imagery). Patients allocated to VR groups will be trained to use a head-mounted display that immerses them in 3D audio-video content. The non-VR group will use a laptop displaying 2D video content. We will collect measures before and during the 3-week intervention as well as 3 weeks after the intervention ends. Measures will include patient-reported outcomes of pain, anxiety, depression and fatigue in addition to opioid use. The primary objective of the current study is to assess the efficacy of VRAGI on pain in the home setting. The secondary objective is to assess the efficacy of VRAGI on opioid use, anxiety, depression and fatigue. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Prisma Health Institutional Review Board (#Pro00114598) in November 2021. All participants enrolled in the study will provide written informed consent. Dissemination will be through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05348174, clinicaltrials.gov.

Correction: Psychological impacts from COVID-19 among university students: Risk factors across seven states in the United States.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245327.].

"Messy transitions": Students' perspectives on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on higher education.

The COVID-19 pandemic affected every area of students' lives, especially their education. Limited research has explored students' experiences during the pandemic. This study documents how students across seven United States universities viewed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their educational experiences and how these students reacted to these impacts. We present qualitative data from an online survey conducted between March and May 2020 that resulted in 1267 respondents with relevant data. Conventional content analysis with an inductive approach was used to analyze open-ended responses to the question, "We are interested in the ways that the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has changed how you feel and behave. What are the first three ways that come to mind?" Six categories emerged from the data: changes in instruction delivery mode, changes in schedule and everyday life, increased technology use, decreased academic opportunities and resources, negative reaction to the changes in higher education, and positive reactions to changes in higher education. Among our recommendations for practice are personalized approaches to material delivery and evaluation, synchronous classes and opportunities to connect with professors and students, and convenient support services.

Do sex and gender modify the association between green space and physical health? A systematic review.

A growing literature shows that green space can have protective effects on human health. As a marginalized group, women often have worse life outcomes than men, including disparities in some health outcomes. Given their marginalization, women might have "more to gain" than men from living near green spaces. Yet, limited research has deliberately studied whether green space-health associations are stronger for women or men. We conducted a systematic review to synthesize empirical evidence on whether sex or gender modifies the protective associations between green space and seven physical health outcomes (cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, general physical health, non-malignant respiratory disease, mortality, and obesity-related health outcomes). After searching five databases, we identified 62 articles (including 81 relevant analyses) examining whether such effect modification existed. We classified analyses based on whether green space-health were stronger for women, no sex/gender differences were detected, or such associations were stronger for men. Most analyses found that green space-physical health associations were stronger for women than for men when considering study results across all selected health outcomes. Also, women showed stronger protective associations with green space than men for obesity-related outcomes and mortality. Additionally, the protective green space-health associations were slightly stronger among women for green land cover (greenness, NDVI) than for public green space (parks), and women were also favored over men when green space was measured very close to one's home (0-500 m). Further, the green space-health associations were stronger for women than for men in Europe and North America, but not in other continents. As many government agencies and nongovernmental organizations worldwide work to advance gender equity, our review shows that green space could help reduce some gender-based health disparities. More robust empirical studies (e.g., experimental) are needed to contribute to this body of evidence.

Greenspace and park use associated with less emotional distress among college students in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively affected many people's psychological health. Impacts may be particularly severe among socially vulnerable populations such as college students, a group predisposed to mental health problems. Outdoor recreation and visits to greenspaces such as parks offer promising pathways for addressing the mental health challenges associated with COVID-19. During the early stages of the pandemic (March-May 2020), we surveyed 1280 college students at four large public universities across the United States (U.S.) to assess how, and why, outdoor recreation and park use changed since the emergence of COVID-19. We also measured students' self-reported levels of emotional distress (a proxy for psychological health) and assessed potential demographic and contextual correlates of distress, including county-level per capita park area and greenness, using generalized linear models. We found that 67% of students reported limiting outdoor activities and 54% reported reducing park use during the pandemic. Students who reduced their use of outdoor spaces cited structural reasons (e.g., lockdowns), concerns about viral transmission, and negative emotions that obstructed active lifestyles. Students who maintained pre-pandemic park use levels expressed a desire to be outdoors in nature, often with the explicit goal of improving mental and physical health. Emotional distress among students was widespread. Models showed higher levels of emotional distress were associated with reducing park use during the pandemic and residing in counties with a smaller area of parks per capita. This study of U.S. college students supports the value of park-based recreation as a health promotion strategy for diverse populations of young adults during a time of crisis.

Green Space and Health Equity: A Systematic Review on the Potential of Green Space to Reduce Health Disparities.

Disadvantaged groups worldwide, such as low-income and racially/ethnically minoritized people, experience worse health outcomes than more privileged groups, including wealthier and white people. Such health disparities are a major public health issue in several countries around the world. In this systematic review, we examine whether green space shows stronger associations with physical health for disadvantaged groups than for privileged groups. We hypothesize that disadvantaged groups have stronger protective effects from green space because of their greater dependency on proximate green space, as they tend to lack access to other health-promoting resources. We use the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) method and search five databases (CINAHL, Cochrane, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) to look for articles that examine whether socioeconomic status (SES) or race/ethnicity modify the green space-health associations. Based on this search, we identify 90 articles meeting our inclusion criteria. We find lower-SES people show more beneficial effects than affluent people, particularly when concerning public green spaces/parks rather than green land covers/greenness. Studies in Europe show stronger protective effects for lower-SES people versus higher-SES people than do studies in North America. We find no notable differences in the protective effects of green space between racial/ethnic groups. Collectively, these results suggest green space might be a tool to advance health equity and provide ways forward for urban planners, parks managers, and public health professionals to address health disparities.

Psychological impacts from COVID-19 among university students: Risk factors across seven states in the United States.

BACKGROUND: University students are increasingly recognized as a vulnerable population, suffering from higher levels of anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and disordered eating compared to the general population. Therefore, when the nature of their educational experience radically changes-such as sheltering in place during the COVID-19 pandemic-the burden on the mental health of this vulnerable population is amplified. The objectives of this study are to 1) identify the array of psychological impacts COVID-19 has on students, 2) develop profiles to characterize students' anticipated levels of psychological impact during the pandemic, and 3) evaluate potential sociodemographic, lifestyle-related, and awareness of people infected with COVID-19 risk factors that could make students more likely to experience these impacts. METHODS: Cross-sectional data were collected through web-based questionnaires from seven U.S. universities. Representative and convenience sampling was used to invite students to complete the questionnaires in mid-March to early-May 2020, when most coronavirus-related sheltering in place orders were in effect. We received 2,534 completed responses, of which 61% were from women, 79% from non-Hispanic Whites, and 20% from graduate students. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis on close-ended responses resulted in two latent constructs, which we used to identify profiles of students with latent profile analysis, including high (45% of sample), moderate (40%), and low (14%) levels of psychological impact. Bivariate associations showed students who were women, were non-Hispanic Asian, in fair/poor health, of below-average relative family income, or who knew someone infected with COVID-19 experienced higher levels of psychological impact. Students who were non-Hispanic White, above-average social class, spent at least two hours outside, or less than eight hours on electronic screens were likely to experience lower levels of psychological impact. Multivariate modeling (mixed-effects logistic regression) showed that being a woman, having fair/poor general health status, being 18 to 24 years old, spending 8 or more hours on screens daily, and knowing someone infected predicted higher levels of psychological impact when risk factors were considered simultaneously. CONCLUSION: Inadequate efforts to recognize and address college students' mental health challenges, especially during a pandemic, could have long-term consequences on their health and education.

An Actual Natural Setting Improves Mood Better Than Its Virtual Counterpart: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Data.

Accumulating evidence indicates that simulated natural settings can engage mechanisms that promote health. Simulations offer alternatives to actual natural settings for populations unable to travel outdoors safely; however, few studies have contrasted the effects of simulations of natural settings to their actual outdoor counterparts. We compared the impacts of simulated and actual natural settings on positive and negative affect (mood) levels using a pooled sample of participants enrolled in extant experimental studies. Relevant articles were identified from a review of research published/in press by March 2020 and updated during the peer review of the current study. Of 16 articles identified, 6 met the inclusion criteria and administered a single cross-cutting, standardized instrument [the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)] before and after exposure. Random effects meta-analysis of pooled effects showed that positive affect increased in the actual settings but not in their simulated counterparts (Hedge's g = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.54, 1.20). We observed little difference in effects on negative affect change scores (g = -0.28; 95% CI, -0.62, 0.06), with studies generally showing reductions in negative affect in both settings. Further research with additional populations, settings, antecedent conditions, and durations would provide a more robust understanding of differences in effects between these two ways to enhance mood by viewing nature.