Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The objective of this research is to examine a select set of interior design elements for their contribution to the perception of hominess in a birthing environment. Seven interior design elements were studied. Seven line drawings were generated to illustrate variability in the manipulation level of each design element, resulting in a total of 49 line drawings. Subjects were asked to rate each of the 49 drawings with three different outcome measures: the degree of hominess perceived, the likeliness of using the setting as their birthing place (preference), and the perception of personal control.

Researchers employed multiple comparisons with analysis of variance to investigate the contribution of each interior design element to each of the three outcomes. Relationships among the three outcomes were then investigated through coefficient correlation analysis. Finally, a General Linear Model was utilized to further investigate degree of impact of each design element.

The findings indicate that perceived hominess in the birthing place is important to women. Furthermore, there is agreement about the use and manipulation of interior design in enhancing the perception of hominess. Successful design in hospital birthing settings can contribute to women's feeling of hominess by providing personal control over visual access, patient exposure, family visitation, and the immediate environment.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alexander

, Ishikawwa

, Silverstein

M.J.

, Fiksdahl–King

, & Angel

(1977). A Pattern Language. New York : Oxford University Press.

Altman

(1975). The Environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal space, territory and crowding. Monterey, California : Cole.

Annandale

E. C.

(1987). Dimensions of patient control in a freestanding birth center. Social Science and Medicine, 25(11), 1235–1248.

Bailey

, Howe

J.K.

(1993). High–volume obstetrics in a combined LDR/LDRP program. Nursing Management, 24(12), 42–46.

Beck

C.W.

, & Meyer

R.H.

(1982). Health care environment: The user's viewpoint. Boca Raton, Florida : CRC Press.

Ching

F.D.K.

(1996). Architecture: Form Space and Order. New York : Plenum.

Danko

W.D.

, & Boucher

D.L

(1985). Perspectives from users of obstetric services: Implications for providers. Health Marketing Quarterly, 3(1), 41–48.

DeVries

R.G.

(1979). Responding to consumer demand: A study of Alternative Birth Centers. Hospital Progress, 60(8), 48–51, 68.

DeVries

R.G.

(1983). Image and reality: An evaluation of hospital alternative birth centers. Journal of Nurse Midwifery, 28(3), 3–9.

10.

Faulkner

(1979). Planning a Home. Pennsylvania : Holt, Reinhart and Winston.

11.

Gibson

J.J.

(1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston : Houghton Miffin.

12.

Horsburgh

, & Robert

(1995). Healing by Design. New England Journal of Medicine, 333(11), 735–740.

13.

Howell–White

(1999). Birth Alternatives: how women select childbirth care. Westport, CT : Greenwood Press.

14.

Kilmer

& Kilmer

W.O.

(1992). Designing Interiors. Florida : Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.

15.

Klee

(1986). Home away from home; the alternative birth center. Social Science and Medicine, 23(1), 9–16.

16.

Lawton

M.P.

(1974). The human being and the institutional building, In Lang

& Burnette

& Moleski

& Vachon

(Eds.), Designing for human behavior: Architecture and the behavioral sciences. Pennsylvania : Stroudsburg.

17.

Lepori

(1994). Freedom of Movement in Birth Places. Children's Environments, 11(2), 81–87.

18.

London House of Commons. (1992). Health Committee Second Report: Maternity Services. London : Her Majesties Stationary Office.

19.

Malkin

(1992). Hospital Interior Architecture. New York : John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

20.

McKahan

D.C.

(1983). Healing environments: healing by design—therapeutic environments for healthcare. Journal of healthcare design, 5, 159–166.

21.

Nightingale

(1859). Note on Hospitals.

22.

Pedersen

D.M.

(1997). Psychological Functions of Privacy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17(2), 147–156.

23.

Rapoport

(1985). Thinking about Home Environments. In Proshansky

H.M.

& Ittelson

W.H.

& Rivlin

G. L.

(Eds.), Environmental psychology: people and their physical settings (pp. 255–286). New York : Holt, Reinhart and Winston.

24.

Ross Planning Associates. (1988). Perspectives in perinatal and pediatric design. Columbus : Ross Laboratories.

25.

Samuels

(1996). The new well pregnancy book. New York : Simon & Schuter.

26.

Shepley

M.M.

(1995). Validating a Building Prototype: A Post–Occupancy Evaluation of a Woman's Medical Center. Journal of Interior Design, 21(2), 15–29.

27.

Shumaker

S.A.

, & Reizenstein

(1982). Environmental factors affecting inpatient stress in acute care hospital. In Evans

G. W.

(ED.), Environmental stress. New York Cambridge University Press.

28.

Turkel

K.D.

(1995). Women, Power, and Childbirth. Westport : Berg in & Garvey.

29.

Zavotka

S.L.

, & Teaford

M.H.

(1997). The design of shared social spaces in assisted living residences for older adults. Journal of Interior Design, 23(2), 2–16.

30.

Zimring

Reizenstein

, & Michelson

(1987). Design for Special Populations: Mentally Retarded Persons, Children, Hospital Visitors. In Stokols

& Altman

(Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 919–950). New York : John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

31.

Simring

Weitzer

, & Knight

R.C.

(1982). Opportunity for control and the designed environment: the case of an institution for the developmentally disabled. In Baum

& Singer

J.E.

(Eds.), Advances in environmental psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 197–210). Hillside, NJ : Erlbaum.

Hospital Birthing Room Design: A Study of Mothers’ Perception of Hominess

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References