Comprehensive design considerations for a new hospital gown: a patient-oriented qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The standard hospital gown has remained relatively unchanged despite reports that it is uncomfortable, embarrassing to wear and compromises patients' dignity. The objective of this qualitative study was to explore the experiences and perspectives of stakeholders involved in the gown life cycle. METHODS: We conducted a constructivist, qualitative interview study with a patient-oriented lens. A patient partner was fully integrated into our research team and directly involved in interview guide development, recruitment, data collection, analysis and writing. We audio-recorded telephone interviews with adult (i.e., aged 18 yr or older) patients and family members, interdisciplinary clinicians and key system stakeholders (e.g., designers, manufacturers, textile experts) in North America. We used a hybrid deductive-inductive approach to coding and theme development. This study took place from May 2018 to March 2020. RESULTS: Analysis of 40 stakeholder interviews (8 patients and family members, 12 clinicians, 20 system stakeholders) generated 4 themes: utility, economics, comfort and dignity, and aesthetics. Patients and clinicians emphasized that current gowns have many functional limitations. By contrast, system stakeholders emphasized that gowns need to be cost-effective and aligned with established health care processes and procedures. Across the stakeholder groups, hospital gowns were reported to not fulfill patients' needs and to negatively affect patients' and families' health care experiences. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that the standard hospital gown fails to meet the needs of those involved in providing and receiving high-quality health care. Redesigning the gown would be a step toward increased person-centred care and requires partnership across the stakeholder groups involved in the gown life cycle to minimize implementation barriers while placing patients' needs at the forefront.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".