MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2531213571 · doi:10.1177/1937586716672041

On the Planning and Design of Hospital Circulation Zones

2016· review· en· W2531213571 on OpenAlex
Shan Jiang, Stephen Verderber

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHERD Health Environments Research & Design Journal · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocializationPsychologyEvidence-based designAnxietyHealth careRealmApplied psychologyPeer reviewControl (management)MedicineComputer scienceSocial psychologyGeographyPolitical sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This present literature review explores current issues and research inconsistencies regarding the design of hospital circulation zones and the associated health-related outcomes. BACKGROUND: Large general hospitals are immense, highly sophisticated institutions. Empirical studies have indicated excessively institutional environments in large medical centers are a cause of negative effects to occupants, including stress, anxiety, wayfinding difficulties and spatial disorientation, lack of cognitional control, and stress associated with inadequate access to nature. The rise of patient-centered and evidence-based movements in healthcare planning and design has resulted in a general rise in the quality of hospital physical environments. However, as a core component of any healthcare delivery system, hospital circulation zones have tended to remain neglected within the comparatively broad palette of research conducted and reported to date. METHOD: A systematic literature review was conducted based upon combinations of key words developed vis-à-vis a literature search in 11 major databases in the realm of the health sciences and the planning and design of built environments for healthcare. RESULTS: Eleven peer-reviewed articles were included in the analysis. Six research themes were identified according to associated health-related outcomes, including wayfinding difficulties and spatial disorientation, communication and socialization patterns, measures and control of excessive noise, patient fall incidents, and occupants' stress and satisfaction levels. CONCLUSIONS: Several knowledge gaps as well as commonalities in the pertinent research literature were identified. Perhaps the overriding finding is that occupants' meaningful exposure to views of nature from within hospital circulation zones can potentially enhance wayfinding and spatial navigation. Future research priories on this subject are discussed.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.265
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.167 · 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