| Literature DB >> 34065329 |
Jin Young Jeon1, In Ok Kim1, Poung-Sik Yeon2, Won Sop Shin2.
Abstract
The study aimed to investigate the psychological and physiological effects of forest therapy programs on adolescents under probation. Fifty probationary teenagers from the Ministry of Gyeonggi Justice Compliance Support Center participated in the study. The study explored the effectiveness of a nonrandomized control group pretest-posttest design forest therapy program. The forest therapy program was conducted for two days and one night for the experimental groups (N = 33), who participated in the forest therapy program, and the control group (N = 17), who received two days of attendance center orders program in the lecture room of the Ministry of Gyeonggi Justice Compliance Support Center. As a result, adolescents under probation who participated in forest therapy programs had a beneficial effect on psychological well-being (K-WBMMS) and HRV's HF (high frequency) and LF/HF (A ratio of Low Frequency to High Frequency) compared to those who received the general attendance center orders program. These results support that forest therapy programs play a positive role in the psychological and physiological effects of probationary adolescents and can affect the diversity of rehabilitation programs for probationary adolescents.Entities:
Keywords: HRV; adolescents; anti-recidivism programs; forest therapy; juvenile delinquents; psychological well-being
Year: 2021 PMID: 34065329 PMCID: PMC8161195 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18105467
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Demographic characteristics of experimental and control groups.
| Classification | Experiment Group ( | Control Group ( | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Male | 32 (68.1%) | 15 (31.9%) | 47 (100.0%) |
| Female | 1 (33.3%) | 2 (66.7%) | 3 (100.0%) | |
| Age average | 1999–2003 | 16.4 | 15.8 | 16.1 |
| Academic Background | Middle school enrolled | 8 (55.0%) | 6 (45.0%) | 14 (100.0%) |
| High school enrolled | 25 (71.5%) | 11 (28.5%) | 36 (100.0%) | |
Figure 1The Saneum Healing Forest.
Figure 2Major progress of forest therapy program.
Forest therapy program.
| Time | Day 1 | Day 2 |
|---|---|---|
| 07:00- | -Get up | |
| 08:00–09:00 | Breakfast | |
| 09:00–11:00 | -Storytelling: my dream | |
| 11:00–12:30 | -Orientation and fill in the consent form | -Physiological and psychological posttest |
| 12:30–13:30 | Lunch | Lunch |
| 13:30–14:00 | Check in | |
| 14:00–15:00 | -Body, hello! (Forest gym exercise) | |
| 15:00–15:40 | Sense awakening walk | |
| 15:40–16:20 | -Dream of trees (investigating organic and dynamic ecological links of forest) | |
| 16:20–17:00 | Meditation with walking in forest: slow pace | |
| 17:00–18:00 | Looking at the sky | |
| 18:00–19:30 | Dinner | |
| 19:30–20:50 | Night walk in the forest | |
| 20:30- | Free time and off to dream land |
Comparison of pre- and post-tests for psychological well-being between the experimental and control groups.
| Variable | Subfactor | Experiment Group ( | Control Group ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pretest | Post-Test | t | Pretest | Post-Test | t | ||
| M ± SD | M ± SD | M ± SD | M ± SD | ||||
| Psychological well-being | Self-esteem | 3.30 ± 0.86 | 4.01 ± 0.71 | −4.66 *** | 3.40 ± 0.77 | 3.26 ± 0.73 | 2.08 |
| Mental balance | 3.18 ± 0.83 | 3.85 ± 0.70 | −4.37 *** | 3.33 ± 0.73 | 3.22 ± 0.61 | 1.13 | |
| Sociability | 3.13 ± 0.80 | 3.77 ± 0.65 | −4.31 ** | 3.34 ± 0.51 | 3.21 ± 0.75 | 1.09 | |
| Social involvement | 3.48 ± 0.89 | 3.96 ± 0.70 | −3.13 *** | 3.41 ± 0.59 | 3.18 ± 0.54 | 0.75 | |
| Control of self and events | 2.97 ± 0.88 | 3.83 ± 0.69 | −5.73 *** | 3.25 ± 0.54 | 3.22 ± 0.50 | 1.59 | |
| Happiness | 3.12 ± 1.01 | 3.90 ± 0.61 | −5.53 *** | 3.47 ± 0.58 | 3.24 ± 0.46 | 0.27 | |
| Total | 3.19 ± 0.78 | 3.90 ± 0.61 | −5.64 *** | 3.37 ± 0.46 | 3.22 ± 0.46 | 2.12 | |
M = mean; SD = standard deviation ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001 by paired t-test.
Figure 3The effect of forest therapy on psychological well-being, comparing experimental and control groups, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Comparison of HRV pre- and posttests between the experimental and control group.
| Variable | Experiment Group ( | Control Group ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pretest | Post-Test | t | Pretest | Post-Test | t | ||
| M ± SD | M ± SD | M ± SD | M ± SD | ||||
| HRV | HF | 6.98 ± 0.64 | 7.32 ± 0.54 | −3.77 ** | 6.91 ± 0.66 | 7.03 ± 0.31 | −1.15 |
| LF/HF | 1.18 ± 0.11 | 1.09 ± 0.09 | 4.38 *** | 1.20 ± 0.13 | 1.15 ± 0.08 | 1.37 | |
M = mean; SD = standard deviation ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 by paired t-test.
Figure 4The effect of forest therapy on HRV by comparing experimental and control groups, * p < 0.05.