The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Possibility of Clinical Applications of Forest Medicine
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nihon eiseigaku zasshi Japanese journal of hygiene, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1265/jjh.69.117 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Qing LI, Tomoyuki KAWADA |
| Abstract |
Since 2004, we have conducted a series of studies of the effect of forest therapy on human health and established forest therapy as a new preventive strategy. We have found that forest therapy has many beneficial effects on human health. However, there is almost no study dealing with the possibility of clinical applications of forest therapy. In this review, we discuss the possibility of clinical applications of forest therapy from the following viewpoints: 1. Forest therapy can decrease blood pressure, heart rate, sympathetic nerve activity, and levels of stress hormones, such as urinary adrenaline and noradrenaline, and can increase parasympathetic nerve activity, suggesting its preventive effect on hypertension. 2. Forest therapy can also decreace the scores for anxiety, depression, anger, fatigue, and confusion and increase the score for vigor in the Profile of Mood States (POMS) test, suggesting its preventive effect on mental depression. 3. Forest therapy can increase the activity and number of human natural killer (NK) cells and the intracellular levels of anticancer proteins, suggesting its preventive effect on cancers. 4. These findings suggest that forest therapy may have preventive effects on lifestyle-related diseases. However, the above preventive effects of forest therapy should be confirmed in clinical research. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 51 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 12% |
| Researcher | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 18% |
| Unknown | 21 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 16% |
| Unknown | 24 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 October 2021.
All research outputs
#7,095,740
of 25,850,671 outputs
Outputs from Nihon eiseigaku zasshi Japanese journal of hygiene
#50
of 244 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,278
of 321,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nihon eiseigaku zasshi Japanese journal of hygiene
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,850,671 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 244 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,696 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.