Hospital Outdoor Spaces: User Experience and Implications for Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This article aims to describe users' perspectives about the impact of hospital outdoor spaces on the patient experience in a postacute setting. BACKGROUND: Hospital outdoor space is an important element in healthcare facility design. There is growing evidence that access to green space within hospital outdoor spaces facilitates healing. However, limited studies have explored the users' perspective regarding how hospital outdoor spaces impact the patient experience. METHODS: As part of a hospital preoccupancy evaluation, users (patients, family, and staff) were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview to describe their experiences in the hospital's outdoor spaces. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Seventy-four individuals participated in this study: 24 inpatients, 15 outpatients, 11 family, 23 staff, and one volunteer. Three themes were identified: (1) outdoor space benefits healing by helping patients focus on life beyond their illness, (2) design of healthcare spaces facilitates patients' access to outdoor space to benefit healing, and (3) programming in the outdoor space promotes healing and recovery. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes the users' perspective regarding the value of outdoor spaces and the design elements that influence the patient experience.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".