Exploring Age-appropriate Design Attributes of Hospital Activity Rooms for Adolescent Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although health professionals have recognized critical connections between health outcomes and physical hospital settings, research data on adolescent patients’ age-appropriate hospital design is insufficient, especially for activity rooms. To explore age-appropriate spatial needs and hospital room design attributes for adolescent patients, the present study examined their spatial needs in hospitals and their perceptions of hospital activity room photos. Thirty-two adolescent outpatients from a university hospital in Kentucky, aged between 15 and 18, completed the survey. Adolescents’ spatial needs during their hospital stays were surveyed on a 5-point Likert scale, and the highly rated need was to have privacy control, followed by the need for quiet places and activity places. The participants’ perceptions of the four hospital activity room photos were collected using twenty-two adjective words on a 5-point scale. The finding revealed that adolescent patients need activity rooms to meet and socialize with their peers during their hospital stays. The statistical analysis revealed enjoyable, controllable, and adult-like as the dominant design attributes of age-appropriate activity rooms for adolescent patients. Unlike activity areas in pediatric hospitals, adolescent hospital activity rooms should be enjoyable to adolescents and allow them to control privacy while providing opportunities to meet their peers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".