MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225584312 · doi:10.26686/wgtn.17147624

Towards restorative spaces for postnatal recovery in urban tertiary hospitals

2020· dissertation· en· W4225584312 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lateef Lawal

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTertiary Education Trust FundVictoria UniversityVictoria University of WellingtonMcGill University
KeywordsFocus groupChildbirthHealth carePopulationNursingQualitative researchMedicineSalutogenesisPsychologyPublic healthPregnancyBusinessEnvironmental healthMarketingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modern living and globalisation are increasingly contributing to access to and utilisation of modern healthcare services in both developed and developing countries; from diagnosis, treatments, and even to birth in a specialised healthcare environment. In many resource-rich countries, birth is one of the main reasons for women’s hospitalisation. Research suggests that physical environments of healthcare impact on patient/users’ health outcomes. Yet decisions about healthcare facilities’ design and programming are often made without input from users. A key challenge for patient-centred care in the maternity field is the assumption that healthcare spaces and facilities created for the general “unwell” hospital population can support the emotional, physiological and psychological needs of healthy women who give birth in hospitals. Previous research into the childbirth environment has focused on physical environments and satisfaction with the labour and birth process. But studies examining the impacts of physical environments on women’s postnatal recovery experience and wellbeing have been limited. The aim of this thesis is to determine the design factors that influence women’s recovery experiences and wellbeing with a view to proposing design guidelines for optimal postnatal environment in large, tertiary hospitals. A two phase sequential explanatory mixed methods approach was taken to the research which combined a quantitative method (online survey questionnaires) with a qualitative approach (focus group discussions – FGDs). Research was conducted with two user groups, comprising postnatal women and midwives, to examine perceptions of physical environment factors that influence women’s recovery experiences and wellbeing in New Zealand hospitals. The results of the questionnaire surveys were followed up in phase two FGDs to provide explanations and descriptions of architectural factors and design features that impacted on women’s recovery experiences and psychological wellbeing. The results were compared, synthesised and interpreted to inform the outcomes of this thesis. The research found several physical environment factors and design features which were significant and a number which were non-significant among the two user groups in all four categories investigated: perception of postnatal room features; interior environment; sensory comfort environment and social comfort environment. The research found factors related to maintenance (e.g. cleanliness), environmental design (e.g. noise/quiet in rooms, and daylighting), and interior spatial characteristics (e.g. view to nature, combined home-like and clinical features and privacy) are more important in fostering wellbeing. Strong evidence was found on how building spaces impact on postnatal recovery experience, especially regarding single-bed rooms for emotional support and psychosocial support environments such as communal spaces and outdoor environments. The original contribution of this thesis is an identification of the environments which have the potential for enhanced recovery experience of women during the postnatal period. This understanding of the architectural design factors and building spaces could help architects, healthcare designers and hospital care providers in applying and promoting restorativeness in large, tertiary hospitals to better help in providing quality postnatal care for women whose hospital stays are crucial to their wellbeing and health prior to going home with their new baby.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207