Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective:

The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of four different design communication media in helping clinical end users understand spatial and functional information and in supporting their ability to provide design feedback.

Background:

It is critical to involve clinical end users early in the design process to test design solutions and ensure the design of a new healthcare facility supports their ability to deliver high-quality care. Traditional architectural design communication media such as floor plans and perspectives can be challenging for clinical design team members to understand. Physical and virtual mock-ups are becoming more popular as design communication media. However, nominal evidence exists comparing the effectiveness of different design media in supporting clinical end-user engagement and contribution during the design process.

Method:

An exploratory, qualitative study was conducted with clinical end users to evaluate the effectiveness of four different media commonly used in design communication.

Results:

Traditional architectural representations convey limited useful information to clinical end users, impacting the amount and type of feedback they can provide. More immersive media, such as physical and virtual mock-ups, support an increasingly holistic understanding of proposed design solutions, inciting more design solutions that range from the inclusion and exclusion of design features to location, position, and functionality of those features.

Conclusions:

When used in combination, each media can contribute to eliciting clinical end-user feedback at varying scales. The overall preference and higher effectiveness in eliciting design feedback from clinical end users highlights the importance of physical mock-up in communicating healthcare design solutions.

Keywords

2-D design communication media 3-D design communication media task simulation design feedback

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anumba

C. J.

Baron

Evbuomwan

N. F. O.

(1997). Communications issues in concurrent life-cycle design and construction. BT Technology Journal, 15, 209–216.

Bayramzadeh

Joseph

Allison

Shultz

Abernathy

(2018). Using an integrative mock-up simulation approach for evidence-based evaluation of operating room design prototypes. Applied Ergonomics, 70, 288–299.

Bouchlaghem

Shang

Whyte

Ganah

(2005). Visualization in Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC). Automation in Construction, 14, 287–295.

Bullinger

H. J.

Bauer

Wenzel

Blach

(2010). Towards user centered design (UCD) in architecture based on immersive virtual environments. Computers in Industry, 61, 372–379.

Calderon

C. P.

van Schaik

Hobbs

(2000). Is VR an effective communication medium for building design. In Proceedings of the Virtual Reality International Conference, Laval, France (pp. 46–55).

Chua

P. T.

Crivella

Daly

Schaaf

Ventura

… Pausch

(2003, March). Training for physical tasks in virtual environments: Tai Chi. In Chen

Froehlich

Loftin

Neumann

Takemura

(Eds.), Proceedings of IEEE Virtual Reality 2003 (pp. 87–94). Los Angeles, CA.

Dunston

P. S.

Arns

L. L.

Mcglothlin

J. D.

Lasker

G. C.

Kushner

A. G.

(2011). An immersive virtual reality mock-up for design review of hospital patient rooms. In Wang

Tsai

J. J.-H.

(Eds.), Collaborative design in virtual environments (pp. 167–176). Haarlem, the Netherlands: Springer.

Heydarian

Carneiro

J. P.

Gerber

Becerik-Gerber

Hayes

Wood

. (2015). Immersive virtual environments versus physical built environments: A benchmarking study for building design and user-built environment explorations. Automation in Construction, 54, 116–126.

Horne

Thompson

E. M.

(2008). The role of virtual reality in built environment education. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 3, 5–24.

10.

Kumar

(2013). Experience-based design review of healthcare facilities using interactive virtual prototypes (Order No. 3573790). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1437204492)

11.

Leicht

R. M.

Abdelkarim

P. M.

Messner

J. I.

(2010). Gaining end user involvement through virtual reality mock-ups: A medical facility case study. In Proceedings of the CIB W (Vol. 78). Retrieved from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d048/b91062c2c28a453566f36197ddfb12269638.pdf.

12.

Mantovani

(2001). 12 VR Learning: Potential and Challenges for the Use of 3D Environments in Education and Training. In Riva

Galimberti

(Eds.), Towards CyberPsychology: Mind, Cognition, and Society in the Internet Age, (207). Amsterdan, Netherlands: IOS Press.

13.

Peavey

E. K.

Zoss

Watkins

(2012). Simulation and mock-up research methods to enhance design decision making. Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 5, 133–144.

14.

Sun

Fukuda

Tokuhara

Yabuki

(2014). Differences in spatial understanding between physical and virtual models. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 3, 28–35.

15.

Traversari

Goedhart

Schraagen

J. M.

(2013). Process simulation during the design process makes the difference: Process simulations applied to a traditional design. Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 6, 58–76.

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.

0.00 MB

0.34 MB

0.20 MB