In research and design, Creative Research Methods (CRMs) are useful to gain insight into user perspectives. Reviews suggest that CRMs offer potential to engage people, yet little detail is available regarding their use in relation to built health care environments. Consider environments for cancer care, where patients are confronted with particular physical and emotional challenges. This review aims to synthesize what is known from existing literature about CRMs exploring user experience when researching and designing (cancer) care environments. Based on 16 items, we evaluate the potential of CRMs, offering insight into why, how, where, and when they are employed. Generally little consideration is shown for participants’ abilities and limitations. Our analysis further emphasizes the importance of reflecting on visual methods, and the need to report research approaches transparently including where CRMs are used. A sophisticated research approach can leverage CRMs’ potential to study experience and carry artifacts forward to inform design(ers).
AndradeC. C.DevlinA. S. (2015). Stress reduction in the hospital room. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 125–134. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.12.001
2.
AnnemansM.AudenhoveC. VVermolenH.HeylighenA. (2014). Being transported into the unknown. In LangdonP. M.LazarJ.HeylighenA.DongH. (Eds.), Inclusive designing (pp. 131–141). London: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-05095-9_12
3.
AnnemansM.AudenhoveC. V.VermolenH.HeylighenA. (2016). Being wheeled or walking: A qualitative study of patients’ spatial experience in two distinct day surgery centers. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 9, 176–189. doi:10.1177/1937586715626548
4.
AnnemansM.AudenhoveC. V.VermolenH.HeylighenA. (2018). In-patients’ spatial experience: Interactions between material, social, and time-related aspects. Space and Culture, 21, 495–511. doi:10.1177/1206331217750828
5.
Bettany-SaltikovJ. (2010). Learning how to undertake a systematic review: Part 2. Nursing Standard, 24, 47–56. doi:10.7748/ns.24.51.47.s50
6.
BiddissE.McPhersonA.SheaG.McKeeverP. (2013). The design and testing of interactive hospital spaces. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 6, 49–68. doi:10.1177/193758671300600305
7.
BloomM.MarkovitzS.SilvermanS.YostC. (2015). Ten trends transforming cancer care. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 8, 85–94. doi:10.1177/1937586714565598
8.
BoydellK. M.GladstoneB. M.VolpeT.AllemangB.StasiulisE. (2012). The production and dissemination of knowledge: A scoping review of arts-based health research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 13(1), Article 32.
9.
BrittenN.GarsideR.PopeC.FrostJ.CooperC. (2017). Asking more of qualitative synthesis: A response to Sally Thorne. Qualitative Health Research, 27, 1370–1376. doi:10.1177/1049732317709010
10.
BrobergO.EdwardsK. (2012). User-driven innovation of an outpatient department. Work, 41, 101–106.
11.
Carmel-GilfilenC.PortilloM. (2016). Designing with empathy: Humanizing narratives for inspired healthcare experiences. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 9, 130–146. doi:10.1177/1937586715592633
12.
CatalaniC.MinklerM. (2010). Photovoice: A review of the literature in health and public health. Health Education & Behavior, 37, 424–451. doi:10.1177/1090198109342084
13.
CesarioS. K.StichlerJ. (2009). Designing health care environments: Part II. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 40, 324–328.
14.
ChamberlainP.WolstenholmeD.DexterM.SealsE. (2015). The state of the art of design in health. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Hallam University.
15.
CheungM. M. Y.SainiB.SmithL. (2016). Using drawings to explore patients’ perceptions of their illness: A scoping review. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 9, 631–646. doi:10.2147/JMDH.S120300
16.
CoemansS.WangQ.LeysenJ.HannesK. (2015). The use of arts-based methods in community-based research with vulnerable populations: Protocol for a scoping review. International Journal of Educational Research, 71, 33–39. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2015.02.008
17.
CrillyN.GoodD.MatraversD.ClarksonP. J. (2008). Design as communication: Exploring the validity and utility of relating intention to interpretation. Design Studies, 29, 425–457. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2008.05.002
18.
DegnegaardR. (2014). Co-creation, prevailing streams and a future design trajectory. Codesign, 10, 96–111. doi:10.1080/15710882.2014.903282
19.
DevlinA. S.AndradeC. C.CarvalhoD. (2016). Qualities of inpatient hospital rooms: Patients perspectives. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 9, 190–211. doi:10.1177/1937586715607052
20.
DreessenK.SchepersS.SchrijversJ. (2015). Designing the healthcare and housing concept of tomorrow. In ChristerK. (Ed.), Design4Health Proceedings3 (pp. 1–11). Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Hallam University.
21.
ElfM.FrostP.LindahlG.WijkH. (2015). Shared decision making in designing new healthcare environments. BMC Health Services Research, 15, Article 114. doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0782-7
22.
EriksenM. A. (2006). Material means…re-representing-important explicit design activity. In WagnerI.BlombergJ.JacucciG.KensingF. (Eds.), Proceedings of the ninth conference on participatory design: Expanding boundaries in design (pp. 89–92). New York: ACM Press
23.
Evans-AgnewR. A.RosembergM.-A. S. (2016). Questioning photovoice research: Whose voice?Qualitative Health Research, 26, 1019–1030. doi:10.1177/1049732315624223
24.
FraserK. D.SayahF. (2011). Arts-based methods in health research: A systematic review of the literature. Arts & Health, 3, 110–145. doi:10.1080/17533015.2011.561357
25.
GrantM. J.BoothA. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26, 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
26.
HeimdalE.RosenqvistT. (2012). Three roles for textiles as tangible working materials in co-design processes. Codesign, 8, 183–195. doi:10.1080/15710882.2012.672579
27.
HeylighenA.CavallinH.BianchinM. (2009). Design in mind. Design Issues, 25, 94–105. doi:10.1162/desi.2009.25.1.94
28.
HeylighenA.Van der LindenV.Van SteenwinkelI. (2017). Ten questions concerning inclusive design of the built environment. Building and Environment, 114, 507–517. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.12.008
29.
HuismanE. R. C.M.MoralesE.van HoofJ.KortH. S. M. (2012). Healing environment: A review of the impact of physical environmental factors on users. Building and Environment, 58, 70–80. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.06.016
30.
JellemaP.AnnemansM.HeylighenA. (2017). Creative methods exploring user-experience in research and design of healthcare environments: A systematized review protocol. In HannesK.HeylighenA.Dierckx de CasterléB.TruyenF.DeclercqA. (Eds.), Quality and reflexivity in qualitative inquiry: European congress of qualitative inquiry proceedings (pp. 44–56). Leuven, Belgium: KU Leuven NQRL.
KirkebyI. M. (2015). Accessible knowledge—Knowledge on accessibility. Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, 9, 534–546. doi:10.17265/1934-7359/2015.05.005
33.
KrippendorffK. (2006). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
34.
LahtinenM.NenonenS.RasilaH.LehteläJ.RuohomäkiV.ReijulaK. (2014). Rehabilitation centers in change. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 7, 57–75. doi:10.1177/193758671400700204
35.
LambertV.CoadJ.HicksP.GlackenM. (2014a). Social spaces for young children in hospital. Child: Care, Health and Development, 40, 195–204. doi:10.1111/cch.12016
36.
LambertV.CoadJ.HicksP.GlackenM. (2014b). Young children’s perspectives of ideal physical design features for hospital-built environments. Journal of Child Health Care, 18, 57–71. doi:10.1177/1367493512473852
37.
MatthewsB.BreretonM. (2015). Navigating the methodological mire. In RogersP.YeeJ. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to design research (pp. 151–174). New York: Taylor & Francis.
38.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. G. & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
39.
PayneS. R.MackrillJ.CainR.StrelitzJ.GateL. (2015). Developing interior design briefs for health-care and well-being centres through public participation. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 11, 264–279. doi:10.1080/17452007.2014.923288
40.
RadleyA.TaylorD. (2003). Images of recovery: A photo-elicitation study on the hospital ward. Qualitative Health Research, 13, 77–99. doi:10.1177/1049732302239412
41.
ReayS. D.CollierG.BillA.Kennedy-GoodJ.OldA. (2015). Designing new healthcare experiences. In ChristerK. (Ed.), Design4Health Proceedings3 (pp. 1–14). Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Hallam University.
42.
SandersB.-N.StappersP. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Codesign, 4(1), 5–18. doi:10.1080/15710880701875068
43.
SearleJ. R. (1983). Intentionality, an essay in the philosophy of mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.
44.
ShiL.MacKrillJ.DimitrokaliE.DawsonC.CainR. (2015). Digital co-design applied to healthcare environments. In AbascalJ.BarbosaS.FetterM.GrossT.PalanqueP.WincklerM. (Eds.), Human-computer interaction (pp. 518–522). Berlin: Springer.
45.
UlrichR. S.ZimringC.ZhuX.DuBoseJ.SeoH.-B.ChoiY.-S.. . . JosephA. (2008). A review of the research literature on evidence-based healthcare design. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 1, 61–125. doi:10.1177/193758670800100306
46.
WangD.OygurI. (2010). A heuristic structure for collaborative design. The Design Journal, 13, 355–371. doi:10.2752/146069210X12766130825019
47.
WatkinsN.MyersD.VillasanteR. (2008). Mock-ups as “interactive laboratories”: Mixed methods research using inpatient unit room mock-ups. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 2, 66–81. doi:10.1177/193758671200500313
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
