MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2598046652

State of Evidence-Based Design in Healthcare Interior Design Practice: A Study of Perceptions, Use, and Motivation

2011· article· en· W2598046652 on OpenAlex

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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchitecture, Design, and Social History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterior designHealth carePerceptionEvidence-based designResearch designNormativePsychologyEngineering design processDesign processApplied psychologyComputer scienceManagement scienceEngineeringArchitectural engineeringMarketingSociologyBusinessOperations managementWork in process
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study addresses the design strategy known as evidence-based design (EBD), and seeks to discover the current state of EBD use and perceptions of United States and Canadian healthcare interior design practitioners. The study also addresses the motivations of healthcare interior designers to use EBD, as motivations may lead to further understanding of EBD's staying power as a strategy. Several emergent points of this nationwide survey of healthcare interior designers provide support for the findings of other EBD surveys administered to other related populations. These points include: • Most responding healthcare interior designers engage with evidence-based design at an elementary level as determined by analysis using Hamilton's levels of EBD use (2009). • Acceptable sources for evidence used to make design decisions vary, and some designers described that previous applied design practice experience (normative theory) is a valid source. • EBD often assists practitioners in reaching a design decision, and most practitioners do not feel that EBD stifles their creativity. This study found that there is generally a high level of interest in EBD. Most practitioners understand the basic underlying principle of EBD (using credible research to reach the best possible design solution). The majority of designers reported that they used EBD for 50% or less of their design decisions on any given healthcare project. Further, designers mostly use EBD within the schematic design and design development stages of the design process. Designers' motivations for EBD use are both extrinsic and intrinsic in nature, and the majority of the participating designers believe that using EBD will improve their projects and also help sell their design solutions. Generally, results seem to confirm that EBD is likely in the early stages of making its mark on healthcare interior design. EBD has yet to reach widespread consensus in meaning and application, yet holds promise to provide enhanced validation to design processes.%%%%A Thesis submitted to the Department of Interior Design in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Fine Arts.%%%%Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2011.%%%%Date of Defense: March 25, 2011.%%%%Interior Design, Evidence Based Design, Healthcare Interior Design, Perception, Motivation, Use%%%%Jill Pable, Professor Directing Thesis; Marlo Ransdell, Committee Member; David Butler, Committee Member.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.395
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.067 · 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

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArchitecture, Design, and Social HistoryFrench-language works237,207