↓ Skip to main content

Using of Group-Modeling in Predesign Phase of New Healthcare Environments

Overview of attention for article published in HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using of Group-Modeling in Predesign Phase of New Healthcare Environments
Published in
HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, August 2015
DOI 10.1177/1937586715599650
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marie Elf, Ann Catrine Eldh, Inga Malmqvist, Kerstin Öhrn, Lena von Koch

Abstract

Current research shows a relationship between healthcare architecture and patient-related outcomes. The planning and designing of new healthcare environments is a complex process. The needs of the various end users of the environment must be considered, including the patients, the patients' significant others, and the staff. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of healthcare professionals participating in group modeling utilizing system dynamics in the predesign phase of new healthcare environments. We engaged healthcare professionals in a series of workshops using system dynamics to discuss the planning of healthcare environments in the beginning of a construction and then interviewed them about their experience. An explorative and qualitative design was used to describe participants' experiences of participating in the group-modeling projects. Participants (N = 20) were recruited from a larger intervention study using group modeling and system dynamics in planning and designing projects. The interviews were analyzed by qualitative content analysis. Two themes were formed, representing the experiences in the group-modeling process: "Participation in the group modeling generated knowledge and was empowering" and "Participation in the group modeling differed from what was expected and required the dedication of time and skills." The method can support participants in design teams to focus more on their healthcare organization, their care activities, and their aims rather than focusing on detailed layout solutions. This clarification is important when decisions about the design are discussed and prepared and will most likely lead to greater readiness for future building process.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 18%
Lecturer 5 11%
Professor 4 9%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 8 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 7 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Arts and Humanities 4 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Other 10 23%
Unknown 10 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 December 2015.
All research outputs
#17,286,645
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal
#205
of 337 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,656
of 277,680 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal
#7
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 337 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,680 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.