MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151632210 · doi:10.1177/193758671000300306

The Effects of Nature Images on Pain in a Simulated Hospital Patient Room

2010· article· en· W2151632210 on OpenAlex
Ellen Vincent, Dina Battisto, Larry Grimes, James A. McCubbin

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHERD Health Environments Research & Design Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoodStressorBlood pressurePsychologyPreferenceHeart rateClinical psychologyMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Views of nature have been reported to relieve stress and pain, making nature an ideal medium for use in healthcare settings. In hospitals whose design does not allow for a view of nature, virtual and surrogate views of nature may be viable therapeutic options. OBJECTIVE: This study tests the effects of specific nature images, as defined by Appleton's prospect refuge theory of landscape preference, on participants experiencing pain. The hypotheses were: (1) Nature views are variable in their impact on specific psychological and physiological health status indicators; and (2) Prospect and refuge nature scenes are more therapeutic than hazard nature scenes. The research question was (1) Which nature image categories are most therapeutic as evidenced by reduced pain and positive mood? METHODS: An experiment using mixed methods assessed the effects of four different nature scenes on physiological (blood pressure, heart rate) and psychological (mood) responses when a person was subjected to a pain stressor. Four groups were subjected to a specific nature image category of prospect, refuge, hazard, or mixed prospect and refuge; the fifth group viewed no image. The Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire and the Profile of Mood States survey instruments were used to assess pain and mood, respectively. Continuous physiological readings of heart rate and blood pressure were collected. Pain was induced through a cold pressor task, which required participants to immerse their nondominant hand in ice water for up to 120 seconds. RESULTS: The mixed prospect and refuge image treatment showed significantly lower sensory pain responses, and the no-image treatment indicated significantly higher affective pain perception responses. The hazard image treatment had significantly lower diastolic blood pressure readings during the pain treatment, but it also had significantly high total mood disturbance. CONCLUSIONS: Although there was no clear "most" therapeutic image, the mixed prospect and refuge image showed significant potential to reduce sensory pain. The hazard image was the most effective at distracting participants from pain, but it should not be considered a positive distraction because it also received the highest mood disturbance scores of all groups.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.541
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it