Healing environment: A review of the impact of physical environmental factors on users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the effects of the physical environment on the healing process and well-being have proved to be increasingly relevant for patients and their families (PF) as well as for healthcare staff. The discussions focus on traditional and institutionally designed healthcare facilities (HCF) relative to the actual well-being of patients as an indicator of their health and recovery. This review investigates and structures the scientific research on an evidence-based healthcare design for PF and staff outcomes. Evidence-based design has become the theoretical concept for what are called healing environments. The results show the effects on PF and staff from the perspective of various aspects and dimensions of the physical environmental factors of HFC. A total of 798 papers were identified that fitted the inclusion criteria for this study. Of these, 65 articles were selected for review: fewer than 50% of these papers were classified with a high level of evidence, and 86% were included in the group of PF outcomes. This study demonstrates that evidence of staff outcomes is scarce and insufficiently substantiated. With the development of a more customer-oriented management approach to HCF, the implications of this review are relevant to the design and construction of HCF. Some design features to consider in future design and construction of HCF are single-patient rooms, identical rooms, and lighting. For future research, the main challenge will be to explore and specify staff needs and to integrate those needs into the built environment of HCF.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".