Cited by 23Healthcare Facilities Design and SustainabilityMedical Practices and RehabilitationFacilities and Workplace Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Rehabilitation environments: Service users’ perspective

Open access
Killington, Maggie, Fyfe, Dean, Patching, Allan, Habib, Paul, McNamara, Annabel, Kay, Rachael, Kochiyil, Venugopal, Crotty, Maria·2019·Health Expectations

Abstract

Background: Design of rehabilitation environments is usually “expert” driven with little consideration given to the perceptions of service users, especially patients and informal carers. There is a need to engage with consumers of services to gain their insights into what design aspects are required to facilitate optimum physical activity, social interaction and psychological responses when they are attempting to overcome their limitations and regain function. Research design: Qualitative exploratory study. Method: Interviews were conducted with patients (n = 54) and informal carers (n = 23), and focus groups with rehabilitation staff (n = 90), from the three metropolitan South Australia rehabilitation health services, comprising different building and environmental configurations. Thematic analysis was assisted by the use of NV ivo 11 qualitative software, with pooled data from all interviews and focus groups undergoing open, axial and finally selective coding. Results: Four major themes were identified as follows: (a) choice can be an Illusion in a rehabilitation ward; (b) access to outside areas is a priority and affects well‐being; (c) socialization can be facilitated by the environment; and (d) ward configuration should align with the model of care. Discussion and Conclusion: Participants who encountered the most restrictive environments accepted their situation until probed to consider alternatives; those who enjoyed the most choice and access to facilities showed the greatest enthusiasm for these affordances. Future architectural designers should therefore consider the perceptions of a wide range of consumers with varying experiences to ensure they understand the complex requirements of patients and that the ward design facilitates the optimum rehabilitation model of care.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/hex.12859

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 42 · Cited by 23

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. 10.1002/j.2048-7940.2000.tb01889.x · DOI
  2. 10.1108/02632771311324945 · DOI
  3. Milne P, 2007, Rehabilitation Services in Tasmania: Current Situation and Future Plans
  4. Bargh JA, 2001, The perception‐behavior expressway: automatic effects of social perception on social behavior, Adv Exp Soc Psychol, 33, 1, 10.1016/S0065-2601(01)80003-4 · DOI · Paper page
  5. GolembiewskiJ.We are our architecture. Science and Non‐duality Conference.San Rafael CA:Centre for Consciousness Studies University of Arizona;2009.
  6. 10.1108/02632771311324981 · DOI
  7. South Australia Department of Health, 2015, Delivering Transforming Health‐Summary
  8. 10.3109/09638288.2014.1001525 · DOI
  9. 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2007.00842.x · DOI
  10. 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00451.x · DOI
  11. 10.1211/ijpp.16.4.0005 · DOI
  12. Institute of Medicine, 2001, Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century
  13. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03990.x · DOI
  14. Ulrich RS.Effects of healthcare environmental design on medical outcomes. Paper presented at: Design and Health: Second International Conference on Health and Design. Stockholm Sweden;2001.
  15. 10.1093/geront/40.5.549 · DOI
  16. Gesler W, 2017, Commentary on the origins and early development of the therapeutic landscapes concept, Med Anthropol Theory, 4, 1, 10.17157/mat.4.1.358 · DOI
  17. 10.1093/geront/18.2.133 · DOI
  18. 10.1093/geront/23.4.349 · DOI
  19. 10.1177/0013916585174005 · DOI
  20. DePoy E, 1998, Introduction to Research: Understanding and Applying Multiple Strategies
  21. 10.5014/ajot.45.3.214 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Isaacson W, 2011, Steve Jobs: The Exclusive Biography
  23. VlaskovitsP.Henry Ford Innovation and That “Faster Horse Quote”.Harvard Business Review;2011.
  24. Lawrence RJ, 2002, Hand Book of Environmental Psychology
  25. Suresh M, 2006, Person environment relationships to health and wellbeing: an integrated approach, Interior Design/Interior Architecture Educators Association Journal, 2006, 87
  26. Rapoport A, 1990, The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Nonverbal Communication Approach
  27. 10.3109/11038128.2010.509887 · DOI
  28. 10.3928/0098-9134-20040201-08 · DOI
  29. Galea S, 2006, Environmental Health: From Global to Local
  30. 10.3846/20297955.2016.1165385 · DOI
  31. Ulrich RS, 1983, Human Behavior and Environment, 85
  32. 10.3846/20297955.2016.1150220 · DOI
  33. Lazurus R, 1966, Psychological Stress and the Coping Process
  34. 10.1007/978-1-4757-4425-5_3 · DOI
  35. Mazumdar S, 2000, People and the Built Environment, 157
  36. 10.1177/0269215508091872 · DOI
  37. 10.3109/09638289509166621 · DOI
  38. 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.02259.x · DOI
  39. 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.02.024 · DOI
  40. Kaplan R, 1989, The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective
  41. 10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2 · DOI · Paper page
  42. 10.1093/intqhc/mzl073 · DOI
  43. 10.1006/jevp.1998.0089 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Palacio J, 2012, Stitchtures: Interactive Art Installations for Social Interventions in Retirement Communities
  45. 10.1046/j.1365-2702.1999.00255.x · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Killington, M., Fyfe, D., Patching, A., Habib, P., McNamara, A., Kay, R., Kochiyil, V., & Crotty, M.
Affiliations
  • Flinders University (AU)
  • Central Adelaide Local Health Network (AU)
  • Northern Adelaide Local Health Network Adelaide South Australia Australia
  • Southern Adelaide Local Health Network Bedford Park South Australia Australia
Corresponding author
Killington, Maggie
Venue
Health Expectations
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-01-10
Volume
22
Issue
3
Pages
396-404
ISSN
  • 1369-6513 (ISSN-L)
  • 1369-7625
OpenAlex
W2910398772
Cited by
23
References
42
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2019: 2
FWCI
9.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Expectations (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Flinders Academic Commons (Flinders University) (submittedVersion)
  • Flinders Academic Commons (Flinders University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Southern Adelaide Clinical Human Research Ethics Committee (SAC HREC ECOO188)
  • Southern Local Health Network of South Australia (425.16-HREC/16/SAC/431)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Architecture › Healthcare Facilities Design and Sustainability
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Architecture › Facilities and Workplace Management
Keywords
hospital ward design, service user perspectives, informal caregivers, patient experience, physical activity, social interaction, psychological well-being, socialization, models of care, architectural design
MeSH terms
Adult, Facility Design and Construction, Female, Humans, Male, Patients, Rehabilitation Centers, Software, South Australia, Caregivers, Focus Groups, Qualitative Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review