“Artificial But Better Than Nothing”

Sarah Blaschke · Clare C. O’Callaghan · Penelope E. Schofield

20 citations0/0 files storedHERD Health Environments Research & Design Journal

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Healthcare Facilities Design and Sustainability Facilities and Workplace Management Urban Green Space and Health

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate patient, staff, and carer responses to an environmental intervention in an oncology clinic waiting room and evaluate the acceptability of artificial plant materials. Design Postintervention: Cross-sectional survey study. SETTING: Oncology outpatient clinic waiting room located in a metropolitan comprehensive cancer center in Australia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Observer ratings of perceived qualities and effects of lifelike (fake) plants while spending time in the waiting room. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample ( N = 143) consisted of 73 cancer patients, 13 staff, 52 carers, and 5 "others" aged between 24 and 89 years ( M = 56, SD = 14.5). INTERVENTION: Artificial plant arrangements, hanging installations, two movable green walls, and one rock garden on wheels placed throughout the outpatients' clinic waiting room. RESULTS: Eighty-one percent (115/142) of respondents noticed the green features when first entering the waiting room and 67% (90/134) noticed they were artificial. Eighty-one percent (115/142) indicated "like/like a lot" when reporting their first reaction to the green features. Forty-eight percent (68/143) were positively affected and 23% (33/143) were very positively affected. Eighty-one percent (110/135) agreed/strongly agreed that "The greenery brightens the waiting room," 62% (80/130) agreed/strongly agreed that they "prefer living plants," and 76% (101/133) agreed/strongly agreed that "'lifelike' plants are better than no plants." Comments included mostly positive appraisals and occasional adverse reactions to artificial plants. No significant differences were found between patients', staff, and carers' reactions. CONCLUSIONS: The environmental intervention positively impacted patients', staff, and carers' perceptions of the oncology waiting room environment. Patients, staff, and carers mostly accepted artificial plants as an alternative design solution to real plants.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 20 citations exist upstream.

References

2003Pretesting survey instruments: An overview of cognitive methods 2008A Review of the Research Literature on Evidence-Based Healthcare Design 1860Notes on nursing. What it is, and what it is not 1992Evolved Responses to Landscapes 2006Physical environmental stimuli that turn healthcare facilities into healing environments through psychologically mediated effects: systematic review 2003Health Care Environments and Patient Outcomes 2003The psychological impact of a cancer diagnosis on families: The influence of family functioning and patients' illness characteristics on depression and anxiety 2008How does the environment impact on the quality of life of advanced cancer patients? A qualitative study with implications for ward design

Cited by

2023Assessing Spatial User Experience for Design Guidelines: A Comparative Study of Outpatient Waiting Rooms With Conventional Versus Modern Features 2023Does Perceived Control Matter in the Outpatient Waiting Room?

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.