Search results

This study aimed at the identification of perceptional environment properties in hospital public spaces that can affect salutogenic components and patients' overall satisfaction and suggested a conceptual framework.

A systematic review focused on specific steps to clarify the impact of public spaces' environmental quality on patients' satisfaction through the salutogenic approach. Searches were conducted in five databases and four scientific journals.

Five perceptional environment components of hospital public spaces: physical–psychological comfort, visibility, accessibility, legibility and relationability can be related to three indicators of salutogenic approach: manageability, perception and meaning and can be evaluated in patients' overall satisfaction: desire to use hospital again, to recommend the hospital to others, to prefer hospital to other healthcare environments and to trust in the hospital.

Despite studies on healthcare environments, there is a lack of research on the salutogenic approach in hospital public spaces. Therefore, this paper focuses on the environmental quality in public spaces as an influence on patients' satisfaction with the salutogenic perspective to create a health-promoting environment.

This study aims at identifying the key perceived environmental attributes that can influence patients’ sense of coherence (SOC) in hospital public spaces and can improve hospital quality to create a salutogenic environment.

In total, 205 patients from the two hospitals in Sari City, Iran, participated in a questionnaire survey. The data were analyzed through structural equation modeling using partial least squares to investigate the impact of environmental qualities of public spaces on patients’ SOC.

Results confirmed that public spaces’ quality is positively associated with patients’ SOC. Accessibility has the most effective role in patients’ SOC, closely followed by relationability and intelligibility indicators. Environmental comfort also influences patients’ SOC in hospital public spaces. In comparison, the quality of the visibility is less important to patients’ SOC.

Findings will help hospital managers and designers to identify influential factors to improve the quality of health-care environments. Furthermore, the study will provide a picture of patients’ views and SOC intentions regarding public spaces in health-care environments.

To the authors’ knowledge, there is a lack of studies on the relationship between hospital public spaces and users’ SOC. Thus, this study investigates the experiences and perceptions of patients toward the quality of public spaces in hospital environments in physical, social and psychological aspects to find out its effects on patients’ SOC.

Both authors have been involved as lay members in research and other activities for a number of years, ensuring they represent the views of members of the public. This chapter identifies what is, and what is not, patient and public involvement as well as highlighting the importance of involving members of the public in all aspects of the research process. Best practice is explored as identified in the UK Standards for Public Involvement 2019 and the UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research 2020. The implications of the Mental Capacity Act and its wording on research matters are also considered. Case studies have been incorporated to highlight the impact of involving patients and members of the public in all aspects of the research process. These include the lessons learnt by researchers and lay members of the team. The aspiration is to move towards more collaboration between members of the public and researchers; therefore, we discuss co-production of research or community-based participatory research (CBPR). We highlight the need for a better partnership between researchers and members of the public. The benefits of this are explored along with the consequences for all involved.

The resource crisis in healthcare can be alleviated by engaging external stakeholders and resources in healthcare delivery. The authors use value and open innovation concepts to understand what motivates the stakeholders to join the healthcare innovation ecosystem and what value such an ecosystem brings to healthcare.

A systematic literature review following the PRISMA framework method was applied to reach the research objective. Out of a total of 509 identified articles published till 2021, 25 were selected as relevant for this review.

Six categories of actors were identified, including innovation intermediaries, which were so far neglected in the healthcare innovation literature. Furthermore, patients, healthcare providers, innovation suppliers, investors and influencers were described. The authors also distinguished internal and external stakeholders. The authors show why and how open innovation projects contribute to involving external stakeholders and resources in healthcare delivery by contributing to patient autonomy, relationship building, knowledge transfer, improving collaborative mindset and culture, advancing know-how and bringing additional finances.

This article is the first one to systematically describe the value of open innovation in healthcare. The authors challenge the positivist approach in value presented by value-based healthcare. The authors show how openness contributes to addressing the resource crisis by involving new stakeholders and resources in the care delivery process.

This study investigated two key aspects: (1) how a hospital bundles limited resources for preventive care performance and (2) how to develop IS capabilities to enhance preventive care performance.

A case study method was adopted to examine how a hospital integrates its limited resources which leads to the need for resource bundles and an understanding of IS capabilities development to understand how they contribute to the delivery of preventive care in a Malaysian hospital.

This research proposes a comprehensive framework outlining resource-bundling and IS capabilities development to improve preventive care.

We acknowledge that the problem of transferring and generalizing results has been a common criticism of a single case study. However, our objective was to enhance the reader’s understanding by including compelling, detailed narratives demonstrating how our research results offer practical examples that can be generalized theoretically. The findings also apply to similar-sized public hospitals in Malaysia and other developing countries, facing challenges like resource constraints, HIS adoption levels, healthcare workforce shortages, cultural and linguistic diversity, bureaucratic hurdles, and specific patient demographics and health issues. Further, lessons from this context can be usefully applied to non-healthcare service sector domains.

This study provides a succinct strategy for enhancing preventive care in Malaysian public hospitals, focusing on system integration and alignment with hospital strategy, workforce diversity through recruitment and mentorship, and continuous training for health equity and inclusivity. This approach aims to improve resource efficiency, communication, cultural competence, and healthcare outcomes.

Efficiently using limited resources through HIS investment is essential to improve preventive care and reduce chronic diseases, which cause approximately nine million deaths annually in Southeast Asia, according to WHO. This issue has significantly impacted the socioeconomic development of developing countries.

This research refines resource orchestration theory with new mechanisms for resource mobilization, extends IS literature by identifying how strategic bundling forms specialized healthcare IS capabilities, enriches preventive care literature through actionable resource-bundling activities, and adds to HIS literature by advocating for an integrated, preventive care focus from the alignment of HIS design, people and institutional policies to address concerns raised by other research regarding the utilization of HIS in improving the quality of preventive care.

Cancer has become a priority among today’s health problems. Therefore, providing facilities that ensure high-quality cancer treatment has become an essential design problem. Additionally, a considerable number of studies have introduced the ‘healing environment concept’ as a substantial input for healthcare buildings. The purpose of this paper is to present a design guide for cancer treatment services that is compatible with the healing environment concept.

In this context, studies on the healing environment have been analyzed, and the legislation of some selected countries has been assessed. Then, all the filtered data are used to form the design guideline for chemotherapy department, radiation oncology department and inpatient care services under a new series of analysis criteria.

The resulting principles are revealed according to the criteria of general settlement principles, internal function relations, medical necessities, user experience, interior design, social interaction/privacy, safety, landscape design and outdoor relations by the help of proposed plans, diagrams and schematic drawings.

This research constitutes the first and yet only study in its field that aims to increase efficiency and user satisfaction and provide better patient-centered care while providing a design guide on health-care architecture.

This study aims to understand the progressive marketization of health data collection and use, through a study of its historical development in France, from the 1930s to the present day.

The authors collected a set of legal, institutional, political and media data. These came from the INA (National Audiovisual Institute), the French national newspaper websites and the websites legifrance.gouv.fr and vie-publique.fr. The authors then conducted a thematic content analysis.

The study results highlight the changes in the health-care system related to the increased use of data in France over three major periods. The first period – 1930s to 1980s – is marked by the creation of the French social security system to collect large sets of data to better manager people’s health care. The second period – 1980s to 2000s – is characterized by the adoption and assimilation of tools to manage patient data through several national and European regulations. The last period – 2000s to the present – saw the introduction of measures in favor of the digitalization of health care, and consequently of data, in parallel with the advancement of digital technologies in general. The institutional dynamics in healthcare have evolved with the nature of the actors and their practices, in connection with new perceptions about health data.

This research sheds light on the historical transformation of health data collection and use in France, revealing the involvement of diverse stakeholders, the discourses driving data development and the need for regulation. It exposes the dual nature of health data collection and use, initially sanctioned by the state and public entities but later exploited for private interests.

Science is too important to be left solely to scientists, and so the public need to be involved in the design, funding, delivery and implementation of health research, and in discussions about the ethics of research. Since the 1960s, the United Kingdom and many other countries have included scientists from outside health care in various roles in health care research, as well as nonscientists, ordinary citizens, patients and carers. In the last 20 years, these roles have increased in number and range, but significant challenges remain in ensuring that research is always conducted in an ethical fashion. Errors arise when it is assumed that research is ethical because it has passed a single test rather than being subject to constant vigilance; when academic training on its own is regarded as sufficient to guarantee ethical conduct; when pontification about sophisticated dilemmas ignores fundamental matters of equity and helpfulness and when there is an absence of curiosity about the value positions of others (Boaz et al., 2016). We argue in this chapter that in every setting, citizens have the potential to contribute to ethical debates, whether they assist in establishing priorities for research funding, serve as research funding co-applicants, take the lay member places on Research Ethics Committees and Steering Committees, collect and analyze data or co-author academic papers.

This study aims to examine the perceptions and evaluations of Muslim COVID-19 survivors and health workers regarding the halal, business and ethical attributes of hospitals during their interactions related to COVID-19 treatment.

Descriptive qualitative research with semi-structured online interviews was used to gather insights from COVID-19 survivors and health workers who treated COVID-19 patients. The findings were then compared with existing literature on hospital services and Sharia attributes.

The study found that patients and health-care workers in hospitals are concerned about whether the hospital follows Sharia law, the quality of health-care and hospital services and the ethical conduct of hospital staff. This is especially true during the COVID-19 pandemic, when patients are more anxious about religious conduct and the afterlife.

Hospitals need to address halal attributes in all aspects of their services for Muslim patients and business attributes such as standard health-care quality, service quality and ethical attributes. Participants indicated that when these needs are met, they are more likely to revisit the hospital and recommend it to others.

This study contributes to understanding the expectations of Muslim patients regarding hospital services that meet Islamic ethical and business requirements. Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a case study broadens the understanding of how to better serve Muslim customers.

Co-production has received increasing attention from managers and researchers in public services. In the health care sector, co-production has become a by-word for the meaningful engagement of patients yet there is still a lack of knowledge around what works when co-producing services. The paper sets out a set of pragmatic principles which may guide anyone embarking on co-producing health care services, and provides an illustration of a co-produced Young People’s Health Research Group in England. We conclude by outlining some learning points which are useful when establishing co-production projects.