Next Article in Journal
Lessons Learned in Digital Health Promotion: The Promise and Challenge of Contextual Behavioral Science Methodology in Valuing Intervention Research
Next Article in Special Issue
Intersection Between Eco-Anxiety and Lexical Labels: A Study on Mental Health in Spanish-Language Digital Media
Previous Article in Journal
Do Social Relationships Influence Moral Judgment? A Cross-Cultural Examination
Previous Article in Special Issue
Anxiety in Outdoor Experiential Education: Examining Predictors, Sources, and Implications for Program Design
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Behavioral Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 8
10.3390/bs15081096
Review Report
behavsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Roots and Shoots: A Pilot Parallel Randomised Controlled Trial Assessing the Feasibility and Acceptability of a Nature-Based Self-Help Intervention for Low Wellbeing

Behav. Sci. 2025, 15(8), 1096; https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15081096
by Matthew Owens 1,2,*, Chloe Houghton 1, Paige Beattie 1 and Hannah L. I. Bunce 2,3
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Behav. Sci. 2025, 15(8), 1096; https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15081096
Submission received: 13 May 2025 / Revised: 2 August 2025 / Accepted: 8 August 2025 / Published: 12 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Mental Health and the Natural Environment)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The MS presents a very interesting and well-developed study to assess acceptability and feasibility of a self-administered nature-based intervention.  The topic is actual and with many implications. Thus I am positive towards publication pending the minor revisions listed below

Procedure. Did you collect measures on duration, quality, other details of the self-guided activities done? If not please add in the Limitations and future Avenues sections

Discussion. Your rationale seems to suggest that self-administered lead to similar effects than guided. I would report at least about the social and motivational advantages to run guided activities.

You also report about a once a week activity effectiveness. What about more enduring programs? For instance

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/03946320070200S202

https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/14/7/1423

As usual, women mostly participated. I would add in the Discussion some insights on how favoring males participation.

Individual differences in effectiveness are clearly documented. Any insight on the factors leading to them? The place where the activities were run? Psychological factors? Individual preferences? Others?

I wish the AA the best with their research!

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very clear and well written article. The context and rationale are well developed  and evidenced with valid citations. 

The methodology is  clear, however the consort diagram seems to have sections missing or could be presented more clearly for  the reader  Line 109 - Formal power calculations are not recommended for pilot studies (Whitehead et al., 2016), given that one of their functions is to gain initial estimates for sample size in future 
trials (Lancaster, 2015). There was 

It would be valuable  to see the qualitative data analysed further, maybe in another article ?

Discussion of data and conclusions a re measured but highlight he implications of the Root and Shoots intervention and  as suggested  point to the benefits of conducting a RCT trail.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop