Search

This study aims to analyze research methodologies from 157 research articles published in this journal in the last five years (2016-2020).Health environments research is comprised of research covering many topics and from various disciplines worldwide. No systematic study exists to uncover themes in evidence-based design (EBD) research concerning the types of research published, people engaged in research, and the research methods employed. Understanding the nature of health environment research performed can help researchers, practitioners, and students situate their work within an EBD research structure.Case study research was used to analyze 157 articles published in theFindings are reported on categories commonly found in empirical research articles: (i) key words, (ii) disciplines from authors, (iii) settings studied, (iv) populations studied or sampled, (v) research approach and study design, (vi) research strategies, (vii) data collection methods, (viii) data analysis procedures, (ix) design categories and variables, and (x) outcome categories and variables.The analyses highlighted the research methods most frequently used in health environments research. Findings revealed several inconsistencies across articles on key words and the framing of research methodologies. Results suggest that there should be a consistent and overarching research taxonomy with a set of acceptable terms for effective literature searches.

Background: Nature images are frequently used for therapeutic purposes in hospital settings. Nature images may distract people from pain and promote psychological and physiological well-being, yet limited research is available to guide the selection process of nature images. Objective: The hypothesis is that higher degrees of presence and/or influence in the still photograph make it more effective at holding the viewer's attention, which therefore may distract the viewer from pain, and therefore be considered therapeutic. Research questions include: (1) Is there a significant difference in the level of perceived presence among the selected images? (2) Is there a significant difference in the level of perceived influence among the selected images? (3) Is there a correlation between levels of presence and levels of influence? Methods: 109 college students were randomly assigned to one of four different image categories defined by Appleton's prospect refuge theory of landscape preference. Categories included prospect, refuge, hazard, and mixed prospect and refuge. A control group was also included. Each investigation was divided into five periods: prereporting, rest, a pain stressor (hand in ice water for up to 120 seconds), recovery, and postreporting. Physiological readings (vital signs) were measured repeatedly using a Dinamap automatic vital sign tracking machine. Psychological responses (mood) to the image were collected using a reliable instrument, the Profile of Mood States. Results: No significant statistical difference in levels of presence was found among the four image categories. However, levels of influence differed and the hazard nature image category had significantly higher influence ratings and lower diastolic blood pressure readings during the pain treatment. A correlation ( r = .62) between presence and influence was identified; as one rose, so did the other. Mood state was significantly low for the hazard nature image after the pain stressor experience. Conclusions: Though the hazard image caused distraction from pain, it is nontherapeutic because of the low mood ratings it received. These preliminary findings contribute methodology to the research field and stimulate interest for additional research into the visual effects of nature images on pain.

Background: Views of nature have been reported to relieve stress and pain, making nature an ideal medium for use in healthcare settings. In hospitals whose design does not allow for a view of nature, virtual and surrogate views of nature may be viable therapeutic options. Objective: This study tests the effects of specific nature images, as defined by Appleton's prospect refuge theory of landscape preference, on participants experiencing pain. The hypotheses were: (1) Nature views are variable in their impact on specific psychological and physiological health status indicators; and (2) Prospect and refuge nature scenes are more therapeutic than hazard nature scenes. The research question was (1) Which nature image categories are most therapeutic as evidenced by reduced pain and positive mood? Methods: An experiment using mixed methods assessed the effects of four different nature scenes on physiological (blood pressure, heart rate) and psychological (mood) responses when a person was subjected to a pain stressor. Four groups were subjected to a specific nature image category of prospect, refuge, hazard, or mixed prospect and refuge; the fifth group viewed no image. The Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire and the Profile of Mood States survey instruments were used to assess pain and mood, respectively. Continuous physiological readings of heart rate and blood pressure were collected. Pain was induced through a cold pressor task, which required participants to immerse their nondominant hand in ice water for up to 120 seconds. Results: The mixed prospect and refuge image treatment showed significantly lower sensory pain responses, and the no-image treatment indicated significantly higher affective pain perception responses. The hazard image treatment had significantly lower diastolic blood pressure readings during the pain treatment, but it also had significantly high total mood disturbance. Conclusions: Although there was no clear “most” therapeutic image, the mixed prospect and refuge image showed significant potential to reduce sensory pain. The hazard image was the most effective at distracting participants from pain, but it should not be considered a positive distraction because it also received the highest mood disturbance scores of all groups.