Researching and Designing Health Care Environments: A Systematized Review of Creative Research Methods

Abstract

In research and design, Creative Research Methods (CRMs) are useful to gain insight into user perspectives. Reviews suggest that CRMs offer potential to engage people, yet little detail is available regarding their use in relation to built health care environments. Consider environments for cancer care, where patients are confronted with particular physical and emotional challenges. This review aims to synthesize what is known from existing literature about CRMs exploring user experience when researching and designing (cancer) care environments. Based on 16 items, we evaluate the potential of CRMs, offering insight into why, how, where, and when they are employed. Generally little consideration is shown for participants’ abilities and limitations. Our analysis further emphasizes the importance of reflecting on visual methods, and the need to report research approaches transparently including where CRMs are used. A sophisticated research approach can leverage CRMs’ potential to study experience and carry artifacts forward to inform design(ers).

Keywords

communication hospitals research design users’ experiences qualitative research systematized review

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andrade

C. C.

Devlin

A. S.

(2015). Stress reduction in the hospital room. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 125–134. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.12.001

Annemans

Audenhove

C. V

Vermolen

Heylighen

(2014). Being transported into the unknown. In Langdon

P. M.

Lazar

Heylighen

Dong

(Eds.), Inclusive designing (pp. 131–141). London: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-05095-9_12

Annemans

Audenhove

C. V.

Vermolen

Heylighen

(2016). Being wheeled or walking: A qualitative study of patients’ spatial experience in two distinct day surgery centers. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 9, 176–189. doi:10.1177/1937586715626548

Annemans

Audenhove

C. V.

Vermolen

Heylighen

(2018). In-patients’ spatial experience: Interactions between material, social, and time-related aspects. Space and Culture, 21, 495–511. doi:10.1177/1206331217750828

Bettany-Saltikov

(2010). Learning how to undertake a systematic review: Part 2. Nursing Standard, 24, 47–56. doi:10.7748/ns.24.51.47.s50

Biddiss

McPherson

Shea

McKeever

(2013). The design and testing of interactive hospital spaces. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 6, 49–68. doi:10.1177/193758671300600305

Bloom

Markovitz

Silverman

Yost

(2015). Ten trends transforming cancer care. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 8, 85–94. doi:10.1177/1937586714565598

Boydell

K. M.

Gladstone

B. M.

Volpe

Allemang

Stasiulis

(2012). The production and dissemination of knowledge: A scoping review of arts-based health research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 13(1), Article 32.

Britten

Garside

Pope

Frost

Cooper

(2017). Asking more of qualitative synthesis: A response to Sally Thorne. Qualitative Health Research, 27, 1370–1376. doi:10.1177/1049732317709010

10.

Broberg

Edwards

(2012). User-driven innovation of an outpatient department. Work, 41, 101–106.

11.

Carmel-Gilfilen

Portillo

(2016). Designing with empathy: Humanizing narratives for inspired healthcare experiences. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 9, 130–146. doi:10.1177/1937586715592633

12.

Catalani

Minkler

(2010). Photovoice: A review of the literature in health and public health. Health Education & Behavior, 37, 424–451. doi:10.1177/1090198109342084

13.

Cesario

S. K.

Stichler

(2009). Designing health care environments: Part II. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 40, 324–328.

14.

Chamberlain

Wolstenholme

Dexter

Seals

(2015). The state of the art of design in health. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Hallam University.

15.

Cheung

M. M. Y.

Saini

Smith

(2016). Using drawings to explore patients’ perceptions of their illness: A scoping review. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 9, 631–646. doi:10.2147/JMDH.S120300

16.

Coemans

Wang

Leysen

Hannes

(2015). The use of arts-based methods in community-based research with vulnerable populations: Protocol for a scoping review. International Journal of Educational Research, 71, 33–39. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2015.02.008

17.

Crilly

Good

Matravers

Clarkson

P. J.

(2008). Design as communication: Exploring the validity and utility of relating intention to interpretation. Design Studies, 29, 425–457. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2008.05.002

18.

Degnegaard

(2014). Co-creation, prevailing streams and a future design trajectory. Codesign, 10, 96–111. doi:10.1080/15710882.2014.903282

19.

Devlin

A. S.

Andrade

C. C.

Carvalho

(2016). Qualities of inpatient hospital rooms: Patients perspectives. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 9, 190–211. doi:10.1177/1937586715607052

20.

Dreessen

Schepers

Schrijvers

(2015). Designing the healthcare and housing concept of tomorrow. In Christer

(Ed.), Design4Health Proceedings 3 (pp. 1–11). Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Hallam University.

21.

Elf

Frost

Lindahl

Wijk

(2015). Shared decision making in designing new healthcare environments. BMC Health Services Research, 15, Article 114. doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0782-7

22.

Eriksen

M. A.

(2006). Material means…re-representing-important explicit design activity. In Wagner

Blomberg

Jacucci

Kensing

(Eds.), Proceedings of the ninth conference on participatory design: Expanding boundaries in design (pp. 89–92). New York: ACM Press

23.

Evans-Agnew

R. A.

Rosemberg

M.-A. S.

(2016). Questioning photovoice research: Whose voice? Qualitative Health Research, 26, 1019–1030. doi:10.1177/1049732315624223

24.

Fraser

K. D.

Sayah

(2011). Arts-based methods in health research: A systematic review of the literature. Arts & Health, 3, 110–145. doi:10.1080/17533015.2011.561357

25.

Grant

M. J.

Booth

(2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26, 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

26.

Heimdal

Rosenqvist

(2012). Three roles for textiles as tangible working materials in co-design processes. Codesign, 8, 183–195. doi:10.1080/15710882.2012.672579

27.

Heylighen

Cavallin

Bianchin

(2009). Design in mind. Design Issues, 25, 94–105. doi:10.1162/desi.2009.25.1.94

28.

Heylighen

Van der Linden

Van Steenwinkel

(2017). Ten questions concerning inclusive design of the built environment. Building and Environment, 114, 507–517. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.12.008

29.

Huisman

E. R. C.M.

Morales

van Hoof

Kort

H. S. M.

(2012). Healing environment: A review of the impact of physical environmental factors on users. Building and Environment, 58, 70–80. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.06.016

30.

Jellema

Annemans

Heylighen

(2017). Creative methods exploring user-experience in research and design of healthcare environments: A systematized review protocol. In Hannes

Heylighen

Dierckx de Casterlé

Truyen

Declercq

(Eds.), Quality and reflexivity in qualitative inquiry: European congress of qualitative inquiry proceedings (pp. 44–56). Leuven, Belgium: KU Leuven NQRL.

31.

Jørgensen

Lindegaard

Rosenqvist

(2011). Engaging actors in co-designing heterogeneous innovations. In Culley

S. J.

Hicks

B. J.

McAloone

T. C.

Howard

T. J.

Clarkson

(Eds.), Design processes (pp. 453–464). Glasgow, Scotland: Design Society.

32.

Kirkeby

I. M.

(2015). Accessible knowledge—Knowledge on accessibility. Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, 9, 534–546. doi:10.17265/1934-7359/2015.05.005

33.

Krippendorff

(2006). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

34.

Lahtinen

Nenonen

Rasila

Lehtelä

Ruohomäki

Reijula

(2014). Rehabilitation centers in change. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 7, 57–75. doi:10.1177/193758671400700204

35.

Lambert

Coad

Hicks

Glacken

(2014a). Social spaces for young children in hospital. Child: Care, Health and Development, 40, 195–204. doi:10.1111/cch.12016

36.

Lambert

Coad

Hicks

Glacken

(2014b). Young children’s perspectives of ideal physical design features for hospital-built environments. Journal of Child Health Care, 18, 57–71. doi:10.1177/1367493512473852

37.

Matthews

Brereton

(2015). Navigating the methodological mire. In Rogers

Yee

(Eds.), The Routledge companion to design research (pp. 151–174). New York: Taylor & Francis.

38.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

Altman

D. G.

& The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

39.

Payne

S. R.

Mackrill

Cain

Strelitz

Gate

(2015). Developing interior design briefs for health-care and well-being centres through public participation. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 11, 264–279. doi:10.1080/17452007.2014.923288

40.

Radley

Taylor

(2003). Images of recovery: A photo-elicitation study on the hospital ward. Qualitative Health Research, 13, 77–99. doi:10.1177/1049732302239412

41.

Reay

S. D.

Collier

Bill

Kennedy-Good

Old

(2015). Designing new healthcare experiences. In Christer

(Ed.), Design4Health Proceedings 3 (pp. 1–14). Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Hallam University.

42.

Sanders

B.-N.

Stappers

P. J.

(2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Codesign, 4(1), 5–18. doi:10.1080/15710880701875068

43.

Searle

J. R.

(1983). Intentionality, an essay in the philosophy of mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.

44.

Shi

MacKrill

Dimitrokali

Dawson

Cain

(2015). Digital co-design applied to healthcare environments. In Abascal

Barbosa

Fetter

Gross

Palanque

Winckler

(Eds.), Human-computer interaction (pp. 518–522). Berlin: Springer.

45.

Ulrich

R. S.

Zimring

Zhu

DuBose

Seo

H.-B.

Choi

Y.-S.

. . . Joseph

(2008). A review of the research literature on evidence-based healthcare design. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 1, 61–125. doi:10.1177/193758670800100306

46.

Wang

Oygur

(2010). A heuristic structure for collaborative design. The Design Journal, 13, 355–371. doi:10.2752/146069210X12766130825019

47.

Watkins

Myers

Villasante

(2008). Mock-ups as “interactive laboratories”: Mixed methods research using inpatient unit room mock-ups. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 2, 66–81. doi:10.1177/193758671200500313

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.43 MB