Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Enhancing well-being in health care facilities by architectural design?: a methodological study
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences, Human Work Science.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6867-4712
2004 (English)In: Evaluation in progress: strategies for environmental research and implementation / [ed] Bob Martens; Alexander G. Keul, Toronto: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers, 2004Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Introduction Focusing the investigation on health supporting built environmental components, researches showed (Shepley & McCormick 2003), that therapeutic environments are powerful agents of healing (Canter & Canter, 1979) for patients. Ulrich's theory (1991) depicted that, therapeutic environments unproved medical outcomes of patients by reducing stress. Research findings show that therapeutic environments for patients allow recovery from stress through access to nature, exercise and physical movement, and enhanced social activities (Calkins, 1988; Cohen & Weisman, 1991; Devlin, 1995; Kaplan, et al., 1999; Shepley, et al., 1995; Parsons, et al., 1998; Ulrich, 1984, 1991). Outcome-based research findings are beginning to reveal that beyond recovery from stress, therapeutic environments are related positively to improved health and behavioral outcomes of patients (Lawton, et al., 1996; Rubin, et al., 1997; Zeisel, 2001b; Zeisel, et al., 2001). Problem identificationThere is a clear need for research to identify environmental characteristics that tend to be stressor and what end-use consumers really need and want in health care environments (Davidson & Teicher, 1997; Devlin, 1995; Gray et al. 2003; Potthoff, 1995; Shepley et al., 1995; Stern et al., 2003; Ulrich, 1991; Ulrich et al., 2003). A comprehensive qualitative measurement technique would be preferable in contradiction to focus group discussions, which can, at least, establish a shared view on the environment and even more, enable/empower the participants /consumers to act toward the proposed plan together with the design professionals.Aim and research questionThe aim of the research is to develop a method which gathers both quantitative and qualitative measures on the well-being supportiveness of the environmental attributes and also useful tool for design or re-design purposes.What are the psychosocially supportive components of the built environment, and is the suggested multi-methodological approach an appropriate tool for evaluating those components?The objectives specific to research questions are the following:1. To investigate the relevance of psychosocial components in the suggested multi-methodological tool2. To analyze the data gathered by the suggested tool in terms of well-being supportiveness in a real environment setting3. To provide guidelines for designers about psychosocial supportive environmental components integrated in the design process4. To evaluate the proposed design by comparing it to the existing environment 5. To compare design professionals and laypersons perspective with regards to perceived psychosocial supportiveness Study design / methodologyThe study will be conducted among health care personnel, patients and visitors (the end users of design). A multi-methodological approach, the Triple-E (Fischl & Gärling, 2003) will he used at different health care environments. Triple-E tool consists of three stages, namely the Empowerment session, Environment assessment session and the Evaluation of architectural details session.Empowerment session. The empowering session is based on the Future Workshop (FW) method (Jungk & Müllert, 1987), which is a participatory based brainstorming technique. It is adapted to draw out opinions, feelings, and emotions of users toward a built environment regarding psychosocial supportivenessEnvironment description. Küller's model (1991) describes the mechanism of human emotion processes from a human-environmental interaction point of view. The semantic environment description was built on this model and has been administered in this study.Evaluation of architectural details. The evaluation of architectural details consists of a questionnaire focusing on perceived well-being and preferences, specific to the quality of the environmental elements. The questionnaire was designed based on individual interviews of health care personnel and patients, and was pilot tested within the same subject groups. The questionnaire measures temporal mood, feeling of safety and perception of noise level as part of the evaluation. Preliminary ResultsThe preliminary results show that, with the Triple-E tool, psychosocial components of the environment can be measured by a combination of a structured brainstorming session, a semantic environmental description session, and an architectural details session. The structured brainstorming session yielded data mainly on the physical environmental complaints and functions (79%); the semantic description was more associated with the aesthetic quality of the environment (83%); while the architectural details contributed almost equally to both. User group differences were found and further considered in the design process. The analysis-synthesis model of design helped to make the designer understand how psychosocial approach could be integrated in the design cycle. The ranking of the influential architectural details on perceived supportiveness for architect and patient groups is in the following order: 1) window; 2) floor and wall; 3) ceiling and furniture; 4) handicraft, photograph, chair and curtain; 5) noise level, safety, and space for moving. Preliminary results show that the significant architectural details may influence individual psychological skills, which in turn can affect the individual social skills and self-management.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Toronto: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers, 2004.
National Category
Production Engineering, Human Work Science and Ergonomics
Research subject
Engineering Psychology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-27925Local ID: 18377ab0-6fe3-11db-962b-000ea68e967bISBN: 0-88937-291-8 (print)ISBN: 3-85437-263-9 (electronic)OAI: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-27925DiVA, id: diva2:1001116
Conference
International Association for People-Environment Studies. Conference : 07/07/2004 - 09/07/2004
Note
Godkänd; 2004; 20061026 (biem)Available from: 2016-09-30 Created: 2016-09-30 Last updated: 2018-06-08Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Authority records BETA

Fischl, GezaGärling, Anita

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Fischl, GezaGärling, Anita
By organisation
Human Work Science
Production Engineering, Human Work Science and Ergonomics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

isbn
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

isbn
urn-nbn
Total: 344 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf