Abstract
Aim:
This review explores the role of purposefully designed and well-integrated therapeutic hospital gardens (THGs) for the benefits of patients, their families, and staff.
Background:
Significant benefits are realized when people are in contact with nature in the city. Although hospital gardens are prevalent and the beneficial effects of nature on health are widely acknowledged, the establishment of a consistent definition for hospital gardens that promote health is vital to attain reliable and quantifiable health outcomes.
Methods:
Twenty-eight peer-reviewed journals were critiqued for the period of 2016–2021 and updated with 12 articles from 2021 to 2023 to analyze and synthesize the latest thinking and development in this emergent field. Subsequently, current books and exemplar practice literature were synthesized with the results of the literature review to produce a working definition of THGs.
Results:
Three themes and 14 subthemes were established showing the interconnectedness of THG definition, user needs and experiences, and the benefits and values of THGs. Two original findings can be established—a need to have a consensus on terminology and to establish design processes. The working definition was produced as a foundational step to guide stakeholders in implementing THGs.
Conclusion:
THGs can play a role in improving well-being when they are purposefully designed and well-integrated in hospital programs and health policy. Hospital CEOs, designers, and healthcare experts can use the findings and working definition to assist the establishment of such health promoting gardens.
Keywords
Introduction
Humans are increasingly disconnected from nature with the World Bank predicting seven of 10 people will live in cities by 2050 (World Bank, 2023). In recent years, there has been a stark rise of scientific curiosity regarding the benefits of human contact with nature for health and well-being. Two recent reviews suggest a broad range of significant benefits, although with levels of evidence that vary (Bratman et al., 2021; Frumkin et al., 2017). Research activities about nature and health show the various benefits, acknowledge the complexity of this relationship, and suggest the need for a targeted cross disciplinary approach (Bratman et al., 2021; Frumkin et al., 2017).
Nature has several positive effects on human health, including (1) reduced stress by lowering blood pressure and cortisol levels (Stigsdotter et al., 2010; Ulrich et al., 1991; van den Berg & Van den Berg, 2011; Ward Thompson et al., 2016), (2) improved mental health by reducing depression and enhancing mood and self-worth (Astell-Burt et al., 2014; Gascon et al., 2015; White et al., 2013), (3) better cognitive and creative function by restoring the ability to think deeply and be creative (Magsamen & Ross, in press), and (4) enhanced physical health by reducing obesity and diabetes and increasing cardiovascular health (Astell-Burt et al., 2014; Dadvand et al., 2014; Sanders et al., 2015).
More benefits include improved immune function by increasing the effectiveness of natural killer cells and white blood cells (Li & Kawada, 2011; Li et al., 2008; Li et al., 2006); better cognitive and motor development for children by encouraging curiosity, physical activity, and self-reliance (Kellert, 2002; Louv, 2005); a sense of calmness by reducing anxiety and soothing all the senses (Bratman et al., 2015; Maas & Verheij, 2009; Song et al., 2015); better social connectedness and behavior by providing a relaxed natural environment and places conducive to social interaction (De Vries et al., 2013; Williams Goldhagen, 2017); and more happiness by improving general well-being and life satisfaction (Van Herzele & De Vries, 2012; White et al., 2013).
Gardens are increasingly included in hospital developments because of their nature content, health promoting qualities, capacity to reduce stress, and ability to improve well-being and enrich the hospital environment (Cooper Marcus & Sachs, 2014; Farrow, In Press; Kamp, In Press; Nieberler-Walker et al., 2019; Reeve et al., 2017). Clinical and unfamiliar environments, such as hospitals, can add to stress, anxiety, and irrational thinking because the environment looks, smells and feels “unfamiliar” and is vastly different from any “normal” living environment (Williams Goldhagen, 2017).
Health-promoting hospital gardens are a tool to improve well-being, contributing to emotional, mental, and physical health of patients, their families, and staff (Cooper Marcus, 2016). Patients’ hospital stays, medication intake, and negative feedback are reduced when access to nature is provided (Ulrich, 1984; Ulrich et al., 1991). Staff satisfaction rates increase, user feedback to hospital administration is positive (Copeland, 2021; Cordoza et al., 2018), and staff productivity and teamwork improve when garden access is provided (Verderber et al., 2021). Several recent literature reviews confirm health outcomes for patients, their families, and staff (Blaschke, 2017; Gaminiesfahani et al., 2020; Jiang, 2020; Roberta Guglielmetti & Menicucci, 2021; Valipoor & Bosch, 2021; Verderber et al., 2021; Weerasuriya et al., 2019).
Health-promoting hospital gardens are being established around the world to support health outcomes (Battisto & Wilhelm, 2019; Cooper Marcus & Sachs, 2014). Such gardens can be found in dedicated outdoor spaces, courtyards and are increasingly placed on roof tops because of space constraints, adjacencies to medical departments and easy access. Good examples of therapeutic hospital gardens (THGs) can be found at the Bendigo Hospital Victoria (Keane & Grant, 2022) and the Queensland Children’s Hospital in Australia (Nieberler-Walker et al., 2019; Reeve et al., 2017); the Khoo Teck Puat Hospital in Singapore (Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, 2019); and the Legacy Hospitals in the United States (Cooper Marcus & Sachs, 2014). What is less well understood is how health-promoting hospital gardens must be designed and established to achieve positive health outcomes.
Method
Overview
This article suggests the need for a clear theoretical and practical understanding of what THGs are and which factors elicit the health promoting qualities of nature for the benefits of many. The aim of this review was to explore the question “What is the role of purposefully designed and well-integrated THGs?” The review was guided by a systematic literature review (Page et al., 2021; Pickering & Byrne, 2014). Primary and conceptual research papers were included to make the review more comprehensive and to provide the latest scientific evidence and thinking in this emergent transdisciplinary field of hospital gardens, well-being, and design.
The literature review was undertaken using the period 2016–2021, updated with 12 articles published from 2021 to 2023. This time frame represents the latest research and development in the emergent field that examines how gardens in hospitals can help people get and feel better. Gardens are increasingly included in hospitals because of the therapeutic effects of nature on our health and well-being. The PRISMA flow diagram (Page et al., 2021) illustrates the process of article selection. The Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT; Hong et al., 2018) was pertained to appraise the methodological quality of the selected primary research articles. This process enables the review to be repeated.
Database Search
Abstract and full article screening were conducted in 2021 Covidence software (Babineau, 2014) which facilitates collaboration and minimizes biases through its prescribed conflict resolution process. NVivo version 1.7 (1533) (Bandara, 2006) was used for qualitative data analysis to support data extraction and analysis. Multidisciplinary, scientific, and medical databases were searched initially to establish the extent of literature in the field. Initial databases searched to find relevant articles are presented in Supplementary Material 1.
A targeted Boolean string was created with key words from the research question, “What is the role of purposefully designed and well-integrated THGs?” Table 1 presents key words and alternative phrases. “Hospital gardens” define the boundaries for the therapeutic gardens. “Health” defines what the hospital gardens are about. “Therapeutic” describes the characteristics of the hospital gardens. Synonyms for “hospital garden” and “health” were included and “therapeutic” was substituted with words alluding to purposefully designed and well-integrated THGs.
Key Words for the Boolean Search String.
The Boolean string was revised over multiple iterations with a discipline specific research methods librarian to ensure a cohesive result that was replicable across databases. Key words and synonyms were tested in Scopus. Synonyms yielding positive results in Scopus were included in the Boolean string for the database searches. The resultant Boolean search string was: (“hospital garden” OR “hospice garden” OR “clinic garden”) AND (health* OR well-being OR wellbeing) AND (biophili* OR therap* OR co-design OR context* OR ecolog* OR evidence-based OR experience-based OR nature-based OR “health-promoting” OR “healing architecture” OR “horticultural therapy” OR “landscape design” OR “landscape architecture” OR sens* OR “green infrastructure” OR “green space” OR “art therapy” OR “music therapy” OR biodivers* OR community OR “healing garden” OR “outdoor area”).
Search 3 identified approximately a 2.2-fold increase in papers published in Scopus, ProQuest, and Ovid in the 5-year period (2016–2021) compared with the previous 5-year period (Search 2). Therefore, the research for this review focused on these most recent publications within the 5 years of 2016–2021. Employing this time frame is supported because the last 5 years have produced as many papers as has ever been produced previously as identified in Search 1 and Search 2.
The additional Google Scholar searches were scanned and used as a “large fish net” to identify if any relevant articles were missed. The author team decreased the number of databases and scanned the article titles and abstracts in the other databases to ensure important articles were not missed. Table 2 shows the database search results before screening.
Database Results Before Screening.
a Inclusion dates for 10-year database searches: January 1, 2012 to July 20, 2021; and for 5-year database searches: January 1, 2016 to July 20, 2021. All database searches were conducted July 20, 2021.
b Articles included in title and abstract survey.
c Not included in database analysis but reviewed for inclusion in Supplementary Literature.
Journal Article Screening
The top three yielding databases for the period 2016–2021 were selected for title and abstract screening, that is, Scopus, ProQuest, and Ovid. No articles were captured in Cochrane, Avery Index Arch (via Ebscohost), or GreenFILE (via EBSCO), showing a lack of research on this topic in medicine, design, and science. To check the lack of design related articles, a simplified search using the key words hospital AND garden and (therap* Or heal*) was conducted in Avery Index Arch to identify design related research articles. No documents were identified. The full-text screening process yielded 28 articles for the literature review analysis as summarized in Figure 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed within the author team and refined over four sessions as presented in Table 3.
Flow diagram for article selection.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria.
Critical Appraisal of Methodological Quality
The 28 articles (24 primary and four conceptual research studies) were selected from the final screening. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to evaluate the 24 primary research articles (Hong et al., 2018; Pace et al., 2012). Four conceptual research articles were excluded because MMAT does not appraise conceptual research papers. MMAT enables researchers to report on methodological quality and, in doing so, the usefulness of the content and methodological process presented in the articles, given the variety of the study designs (Hong et al., 2018; Pace et al., 2012).
The MMAT appraisal was independently conducted by two coauthors to give rigor to the appraisal. Incongruities in the assessment results were discussed and negotiated between coauthors. As recommended in Hong et al. (2018), no primary studies were excluded because of low methodological quality, hence no overall MMAT score was produced. Results were contrasted and linked to study characteristics to strengthen the arguments presented in the following sections. MMAT results are presented in Supplementary Materials 2.1 and 2.2.
Thematic Analysis and Synthesis Design
The Boolean string used for the initial database searches was the first step to evolve the thematic analysis with the key words “hospital garden,” “health,” and “therapeutic” clearly defining the scope for the review. An inductive, abductive approach was used to guide the qualitative thematic synthesis in line with Pluye (2013) and Hong et al. (2018) based on (1) predefining themes to which data were assigned—hospital garden, health, and therapeutic; (2) revising themes to reflect the data; and (3) deriving new themes from the data. NVivo software was used to help code, analyze, and develop the themes for the 28 articles.
Literature Update to April 2023
Fifty-eight articles were identified in a Scopus database search on April 4, 2023, using the original Boolean string and exclusion and inclusion criteria. The search period was from the end date of the original review search to April 4, 2023. Title and abstract screening by the first author eventually produced 12 articles for full-text review. Search results and final article selection processes are presented in Table 4.
Article Selection for Literature Update 2021–2023.
a January 1 to April 4, 2023.
b January 1 to December 31, 2022.
c July 21 to December 31, 2021, excludes article from January 1 to July 20, 2021, these were included in the original search conducted on 20 July.
Results
Having examined the 28 articles that address the role of purposefully designed and well-integrated THGs, it is obvious that hospital gardens are valued by users because of the capacity of the gardens to reduce stress and anxiety and put the mind at ease. Study contexts are diverse, making a meaningful comparison between study results challenging. The distilled three themes and 14 subthemes are discussed below and according to the thematic sequence presented in Figure 2.
The role of therapeutic hospital gardens—themes and subthemes.
The first emergent theme—what makes a THG—became THG Definition with subthemes of Typology, Character/Function, and Design Processes. For academic research to contribute new knowledge, the key terms and processes need to be clearly defined to deliver sensible and comparable research results. The second emergent theme—who are the THG users and what are their needs—became “User Needs and Experiences,” with the subthemes of Definition—User Needs and Experiences; Patients; Hospital staff; Visitors & Volunteers; and Open and Restricted Access. Exploring user needs and experiences is critical to inform design and achieve personalized patient care and staff well-being. The third emergent theme—who benefits from THGs and how do they benefit—became “Benefits and Values,” with the subthemes of: Definition—Benefits and Values; Individual Benefits; Community Benefits; Organizational Benefits; and Environmental Benefits. Identifying THG benefits is critical in demonstrating the value proposition for individuals, communities, and organizations.
Study Characteristics and MMAT
Twenty-four articles were primary and four were conceptual research studies. The largest number of articles were published in the first half of 2021 (n = 6 for the first 6 months), followed by 2020 (n = 7 for 12 months), 2018 (n = 6), 2017 (n = 5), and 2016 and 2019 (n = 2 each). The largest portion of first authors were affiliated to the United States (n = 8), followed by Australia (n = 6), Sweden (n = 2), Iran (n = 2), and the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Denmark, Greece, Turkey, Italy, Argentina, Slovakia, and Serbia (n = 1 each). The 28 articles included 11 qualitative, 11 quantitative, and six mixed method studies. A detailed account of the review articles’ study characteristics is presented in Table 5.
Characteristics of Included 28 Review Articles.
a Empirical study (n = 24).
b Conceptual study (n = 4).
The 24 primary research articles included in the MMAT appraisal included seven qualitative, two quantitative randomized controlled, two quantitative nonrandomized, seven quantitative descriptive, and six mixed methods research studies. Fifteen of the 24 studies achieved full marks. Six of the seven qualitative research studies scored full marks, five of the 11 quantitative research studies scored full marks, and four of the six mixed method research studies scored full marks. Based on Hong et al. (2018), the MMAT appraisal of the 24 primary research articles is presented in Supplementary Materials 2.1 and 2.2.
The outcome of the MMAT appraisal, while providing insight into the methodological quality for each article, does not offer a baseline for what can be considered a “pass” or “fail” for a study (Hong et al., 2018). Rigorous research is critical to evidence-based design, and it is hoped that over time methodological research quality can be improved and, in that way, aid in comparing mixed methods research results. The results of the 28 articles evidenced in Table 6 and Figure 2 illustrate the themes and subthemes and the interconnectedness of definition, user needs and experiences, and the benefits and values of THGs.
Evidence Summary.
a Empirical study (n = 24).
b Conceptual study (n = 4).
Definitions of THGs (Theme 1)
A THG can mean different things to different people, therefore making it necessary to say what makes THGs, how they are used and by whom, and importantly how such gardens can be established successfully.
Typologies (Theme 1.1)
Various terms were used in the 28 articles to name the clinical setting and this diversity of terminology, as presented in Figure 3, ranged from conceptual descriptions such as nature or nature experience to specific descriptions such as gardens or healing gardens. When one considers the different terms used, for example, “healing garden” in the Reeve et al. (2017) study and “nature experience” in the Blaschke et al. (2017) study, the need for common terminology is obvious. It is critical to have a universal understanding of the clinical setting in which the nature and health relationship is explored to compare results between studies.
Terminology used to describe hospital gardens in the 28 articles.
Character and Function (Theme 1.2)
For gardens to become therapeutic places, they must be tranquil, peaceful, natural, comfortable, appealing and stimulating all at the same time (Duzenli et al., 2017). Above all, the character of the garden must suit the needs of the user. The purpose of a health-promoting hospital garden can vary from open access to restricted access characterized by medically led rehabilitation or therapy programs. While 22 of the 28 articles named the functional and, or the aesthetic characteristic of the researched typology, the great majority failed to be explicit in describing what those entail, thereby weakening the outcome of the results and making comparisons between studies difficult.
Design Processes (Theme 1.3)
Rigorous design processes are critical to support reliable and replicable design outcomes when various stakeholders and multiple disciplines are involved. Three of 28 articles explored design processes for hospital gardens, including interdisciplinary design collaboration and project evaluation. The Lygum et al. (2019) Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) study of a crisis shelter garden outlines the importance of POE in improving design processes to optimize user benefits. A cyclical process of evidence-based and participatory design is used to optimize design outcomes. The project outcome shows the value of collaboration among different disciplines and in that way enables designers to solve diverse problems that they cannot solve alone.
Theoretical frameworks can inform design processes and support practical design outcomes, such as improved health and well-being. The theoretical context prevalent in the writing includes stress recovery, stress reduction, and supportive design (Ulrich, 1984; Ulrich et al., 2020; Ulrich et al., 1991); salutogenic or health promoting environments (Antonovsky, 1979); biophilia, the love of nature, and biophilic design (Wilson, 1984); and nature-based therapy (Naor & Mayseless, 2021). Figure 4 presents a summary of the theoretical contexts.
Theoretical context for the 28 articles.
The criticality of design processes to achieve the outcome is mentioned in 22 of the 28 articles, but scant detail is offered how such gardens are designed, who is involved, and what is a quality design process.
User Needs and Experiences (Theme 2)
Exploring user needs and experiences is critical to inform THG design, achieve personalized patient care and staff well-being. The theme, user needs and experiences, is addressed in 26 of the 28 articles, demonstrating the research interest in exploring the human–nature experience and resulting benefits to health and well-being while in care.
Defining User Needs and Experiences (Theme 2.1)
While user needs and experiences are mentioned in 26 of the 28 articles, they are not defined enough to inform a purposeful design or support the integration of user needs and experiences for hospital programming. The lack of detail may be because of insufficient stakeholder engagement or feedback from patient/user cohorts. User needs and experiences are well covered by Blaschke et al. (2017), Butterfield and Martin (2016), and Lygum et al. (2019). Most articles focus on a collective group of users, rather than differentiating users in terms of patients, their families, communities, or hospital staff. This bundling of users in the 28 articles weakens the results. Only when the patient’s personal circumstances and medical conditions are sufficiently detailed, research results are comparable and suitable to inform improvements.
Patient Needs and Experiences (Theme 2.2)
A patient’s needs while in hospital depend on personal circumstances, on their life situation, and mental and physical capacity after serious illness (Blaschke et al., 2017). People living with cancer value being in nature because it enables a connection with what is truly valued, offers time out from the cancer experience, supports sense making, and reframes the cancer experience by feeling vital support, strength, and hope for the future (Blaschke et al., 2018; Blaschke et al., 2020; Blaschke et al., 2017). User experience validates that sensory stimulation, distraction, relaxation, personal safety, physical activity, and individual freedom are experienced by patients when in nature, all of which are important to patient well-being. Incongruity was identified between the needs of patients and the recommendations from experts. Experts focus on practical needs and exercise opportunities for patients, whereas patients focus on the experiential qualities of their nature engagements (Blaschke et al., 2020).
Butterfield and Martin (2016) concur that garden users, experiencing a crisis that challenges perception, purpose, and meaning, are comforted by being in nature, and they draw personal symbolism from the garden experience to make sense of it all. According to Igeño-Cano (2020), carers reported improved patient conditions because of increased brain function after taking patients for 15-min garden walks in their beds. Carers conjecture that the benefits noticeable in healthy individuals and in noncritical patients may be extrapolated to patients admitted to intensive care units (Igeño-Cano, 2020). The lack of opportunities to access suitable gardens prevents user needs from being satisfied (Igeño-Cano, 2020). Despite the evidence of dissatisfied hospital garden users (Karanikola et al., 2020), the literature largely focuses on visitor experience without questioning the quality of garden spaces.
Staff Needs and Experiences (Theme 2.3)
Ten of the 28 articles explored staff needs or experiences of nature, illustrating the importance placed on staff well-being. Research findings acknowledge the vulnerability of nurses from experiencing burnout because of their demanding work, which affects patient care and hospital efficiencies. Workplace interventions addressing burnout, compassion fatigue, and teamwork found that short outdoor breaks can improve nurses’ well-being and performance (Copeland, 2021). Cordoza et al. (2018) assert that easy access to nature during work breaks was shown to improve the working conditions for nurses as evidenced in reduced stress levels, boosted staff morale, and improved nurses’ well-being and teamwork. Offering easy access to a staff garden in the work environment is a cost-effective way of supporting patient care and staff well-being (Copeland, 2021; Cordoza et al., 2018).
Visitor and Volunteer Needs and Experiences (Theme 2.4)
According to Reeve et al. (2017), researchers used “bench diaries” to establish that healing gardens at a children’s hospital offer an emotional breather and distraction to visitors, a connection with normality and a restorative experience. Compatible with similar studies and their findings, this visitor feedback reveals the criticality of the garden design, eliciting positive visitor experiences to satisfy visitor needs, and resulting in improved well-being (Reeve et al., 2017). Gardens provide emotional respite to visitors, through enjoying a view as a connection to the outside world, being able to have time out in a natural environment, and being part of something bigger (Blaschke et al., 2017; Reeve et al., 2017).
Milliron et al. (2017) claimed volunteers working in a hospital garden feel more involved in the neighborhood, have a greater appreciation of their self-worth, and provide a vital connection between the hospital and the local community. Volunteers are critical in supporting patient care and hospital operations because of their valued psychological and physical support for patients, their families, and the hospital organization (Milliron et al., 2017).
Open Visitor Access (Theme 2.5)
Open access gardens, meaning unrestricted use of hospital gardens, are important for patients and staff. It gives patients the opportunity to be in control themselves in a monitored and clinical hospital environment (Ulrich et al., 2020). This brings a sense of normality to patients’ lives, which encourages feelings of well-being (Butterfield & Martin, 2016; Ulrich et al., 2020). Gardens are used by patients in different ways depending on their need for care and power of mind (Lygum et al., 2019). Unrestricted access to hospital gardens can improve a patient’s mood, outlook on life in times of heightened medical needs, pose respite from the emotional demands of medical treatment or from caring for loved ones, and offer places of sanctuary and sociability (Blaschke et al., 2017; Reeve et al., 2017).
Restricted Visitor Access (Theme 2.6)
Restricted visitor access applies to gardens purposed for medical interventions such as therapy and rehabilitation. There, patients actively join in organized health promoting activities, including horticultural and nature-based therapy, important to individual care needs (Dushkova & Ignatieva, 2020). Therapy gardens are designed for safety, including feeling safe and protecting from self-harm and physical and mental comfort. They are also designed for social interaction, based on the mental power of the patient, and nature contact by offering access to various nature experiences (Lygum et al., 2019).
Benefits and Values (Theme 3)
Hospital gardens can be beneficial for individuals, communities, the hospital organization, and the hospital environment. The health promoting qualities of nature experienced in the gardens can add value to patient care, well-being of visitors and volunteers, and the hospital environment and so increase societal, economic, and environmental health. These benefits are significant because it shows the wide-ranging impact such gardens have on healthy hospital communities.
Defining Benefits and Values (Theme 3.1)
Reported benefits in this context means using measurable outcomes to show how gardens can be helpful for patients, families, staff, and the hospital organization. Measuring the positive effects of hospital gardens is critical for recreating these benefits. The measured benefits will substantiate the health and economic values of the gardens.
Individual Benefits (Theme 3.2)
Twenty-two of the 28 review articles explored health and wellness benefits experienced by patients, family members, and staff. Gardens in hospitals can help people feel better and recover more quickly (Ulrich et al., 2020). Gardens provide sensory stimulation that can lead to physical and mental benefits, such as reduced stress, improved immune function, and increased social connectedness (Dushkova & Ignatieva, 2020).
Patients, families, and staff appreciate being in a familiar and calming environment that evokes memories of the outside world and a desire, consciously or unconsciously, to get better sooner (Reeve et al., 2017). Gardens in hospitals are valued when gardens are easy and safe to access and offer a sense of normalcy (Reeve et al., 2017). According to Blaschke et al. (2017), such spaces are experienced by cancer patients as a sanctuary, a place of sensemaking, and a place to have a moment to just be, think, and let the world go by.
For a child, garden access can improve the psychological and physical markers for the children’s behavior by reducing anxiety and pain, improving muscle strength, and willingness to eat and take their medication (van der Riet et al., 2017). Garden access also stimulates their interest and fascination with the natural world (Karanikola et al., 2020), so providing respite and relief from boredom while awaiting consultation, diagnoses, or treatment (McLaughlan et al., 2019). Long-term exposure to nature strengthens children’s sense of self and self-worth; creates motivation for involvement, curiosity, risk taking, and creativity; and has a positive effect on behavior and cognitive development of school children (Guido et al., 2018).
Gardens in hospitals can also be used for education, promoting a healthy lifestyle through growing and eating fresh produce (Milliron et al., 2017). Importantly, research confirms that learned habits of enjoying and eating fresh produce in hospital are practiced by patients who had left the hospital (Milliron et al., 2017). Copeland (2021) and Cordoza et al. (2018) assert that garden access can be an effective intervention to address burnout and compassion fatigue experienced by nursing staff and in doing so improve staff satisfaction, staff well-being, and teamwork.
Community Benefits (Theme 3.3)
Five of 28 articles discussed the community benefits of hospital gardens. These gardens are important to communities because they provide a place to relax, heal, meet, socialize, and create memories in a comfortable and natural environment (Totaforti, 2018). Milliron et al. (2017) assert that community gardens promote community activities, civic pride, and build social well-being. According to Dushkova and Ignatieva (2020), hospital gardens support many special needs communities and user groups and provide a suitable place for communal activities inspired by nature.
Organizational Benefits (Theme 3.4)
Of the 28 articles, two touch upon the noteworthy financial and organizational advantages for hospitals that arise from the presence of gardens. Although healthcare services are provided in gardens, the gardens are more important to individuals and communities, because they embody the essence of normality for users in a clinical hospital environment. Martin et al. (2021) reveal that gardens in hospitals can enhance organizational efficiencies and social cohesion, while providing environments for health promotion. The 28 articles highlight several organizational benefits linked to gardens, including shorter hospital stays, better staff well-being, improved healthcare outcomes, lower healthcare costs, higher service satisfaction, raised staff productivity and competency, decreased sick leave, greater staff happiness, and improved focus levels (Blaschke et al., 2018; Martin et al., 2021).
Environmental Benefits (Theme 3.5)
None of the reviewed articles were about environmental benefits; however, improved air quality, heat and humidity regulation, stormwater management, noise reduction, impact on biodiversity levels, and improved environmental building performance and importantly a desire to return to the hospital were mentioned (Karanikola et al., 2020; McLaughlan et al., 2019; Silva et al., 2018). Overall, gardens can contribute to a happier, healthier, and more efficient hospital environment.
Literature Review Update
Table 7 presents an update of the literature review to 2023, including key findings and contributions to the three themes and 14 subthemes. The 12 articles show the continuing interest in this research field and fit the parameters set by the themes and subthemes established by the 2016–2021 review. The two original key findings also apply that there is a need to (1) have consensus on terminology and (2) identify the design process to move forward.
Literature Review Update to April 4, 2023—Key Findings and Theme Contributions.
Discussion
Hospital gardens are valued by individuals and communities for providing a place for time out from the clinical hospital environment. Less well understood is what makes health promoting gardens, how such gardens are created, and what is needed to ensure that the therapeutic effects can always be experienced. While the research question was “What is the role of THGs?” the two key findings show that there is a need to (1) collectively agree on terminology and (2) create design processes that facilitate consistent replication. The following is a discussion of these review findings in terms of such effects.
Why Does It Matter?
Being around nature in the city is good for human health, the environment, and hospital organizations. Hospitals often have gardens for this reason, but there is a need to learn more about how to make these gardens therapeutic. It is critical to define the aspects of THGs and how they relate to health outcomes for them to be taken seriously as a treatment. This includes understanding the different aspects and dimensions of health promoting gardens in hospital. By doing this, consistent garden designs can be created that optimize the health benefits they provide.
To claim THGs can help, it is necessary to understand how aspects of health, space, and culture are related to the benefits of these gardens. By learning about the qualitative and quantitative aspects and multiple dimensions of such gardens, the benefits will be clear and enable garden designs to be consistent and well-researched to better garden users the most. Consensus to call them THGs then ensures that all understand the same garden and how it benefits health. This is a foundational step in guiding designers to create purposefully designed THGs and policy makers to make rules based on the benefits of the gardens.
A consensus on what makes a THG will help create consistent and reliable health benefits every time a garden is visited. Only then can these gardens be designed again and again to meet the emotional, physical, and psychological needs of visitors, improve job satisfaction for staff, and increase financial returns for the hospital organization. Defining therapeutic gardens in hospitals is the first step in creating a THG framework that lets designers, health planners, hospital CEOs, and health experts build these gardens in every hospital for everyone’s benefit.
How Can We Do It?
Even though some hospitals are already using health-promoting hospital gardens, there is not a lot of information in the literature about them, so what’s been done in practice was used to help create the working definition based on six important perspectives:
A view of nature can improve patient care: The seminal article, “View Through a Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery” (Ulrich, 1984), found that patients with a view of trees recovered more quickly were happier and required less pain medication than patients in similar rooms having a view of a brick wall.
Understanding medical user needs is critical for patient care: Stigsdotter and Grahn (2002) article, “What Makes a Healing Garden?” provided two valuable insights by, firstly, discussing healing influences of gardens based on theories and findings from relevant disciplines, such as landscape architecture, psychology, medicine, and nature-based therapy, and by, secondly, explaining the various needs of garden users depending on their mental capacity.
Therapeutic effects of nature can be experienced in many ways: The book, Therapeutic Landscapes—An Evidence-Based Approach to Designing Healing Gardens and Restorative Outdoor Spaces (Cooper Marcus & Sachs, 2014) introduces therapeutic landscapes, insights from research and design, the design process, design guidelines, a variety of therapeutic landscapes, and the evaluation of therapeutic landscapes.
Broad ranges of health benefits exist when people spend time in nature: Frumkin et al. (2017) condensed the many benefits and values of nature in health and well-being in the article, “Nature Contact and Human Health: A research agenda.” Various benefits and seven research domains were identified to display the value of nature for human health and to progress research in this context.
Emergent design principles are critically important for the efficacy of such gardens: Nieberler-Walker et al. (2019) offered insights into the purposeful design, design process, and emergent design principles in the book chapter, “The Efficacy of Healing Gardens: Integrating Landscape Architecture for Health.”
Organizational and community culture are at the heart of sustainable health: The book, Seeking Sustainability—The Khoo Teck Puat Hospital Experience (Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, 2019), illustrates this exemplar case study based on the concept of “a hospital in a garden.”
These six important perspectives exhibit the knowledge and skill required to create successful therapeutic gardens in hospitals. And combined with the results of the 28-article review can inform the next step, the best possible working definition of THGs. Figure 5 illustrates the framing of the THGs in the themes and subthemes.
Framing of the therapeutic hospital garden definition.
Working Definition
The synthesized working definition is: THGs are purposefully designed and well-integrated gardens within the hospital grounds or hospital building which medically, spatially, and culturally support patient care and visitor and staff well-being.
Implications and Next Steps
It is acknowledged that the working definition introduced here must be reviewed and refined as scientific evidence and practice knowledge becomes available. Successful THGs offer the opportunity to investigate how such gardens were established. Finding out from hospital CEOs, government officers, health experts, hospital architects, and landscape architects, instrumental in creating such hospital gardens, can inform how such gardens were possible and how it was done.
The next part of this research is to strengthen the working definition by talking with these experts to establish what they know and, with their knowledge, learn more about the three critical dimensions of THGs, (1) health—relating to user needs and their health; (2) spatial—relating to functional requirements and adjacencies to hospital departments; and (3) cultural—relating to local and organizational context and practices.
Limitations of the Study
This article provides an insight into the topic in clinical settings/hospitals in Westernized countries and further investigation could be conducted to compare with a similar study in other cultural contexts. Many studies have methodological limitations which must be considered when assessing the credibility of the review results. Applying quantitative measures to assess complex qualitative THG aspects is difficult; however, both experimental and humanistic philosophical inquiries have value in progressing the topic. Conceptual research and integrated research design can strengthen the inquiry by purposefully selecting and combining qualitative and quantitative research methods in the research design.
Conclusion
THGs are defined to provide a universal understanding of what a therapeutic garden in a hospital should look and feel like. They enable discussions on the amount and type of nature required to achieve therapeutic effects for specific individuals as well as how to design such gardens and successfully integrate them into hospital programs and health policies. Establishing evidence-based knowledge on THGs is vital to change health policy. A consensus on what constitutes a THG can revolutionize healthcare. It creates an opportunity to discuss and contribute to THG knowledge and paves the way for investigating the establishment of such gardens in practice. This will involve interviewing experts such as landscape architects, architects, health planners, hospital CEOs, government officials, and healthcare design, medical and hospital environment experts to gather insights on the creation of therapeutic gardens in hospitals and the benefits of doing so.
Implications for Practice
Access to nature in hospitals has been shown to have positive effects on the emotional, mental, and physical health of patients, their families, and staff.
THGs can be a powerful tool for improving overall health and well-being, but their success depends on a purposeful design and successful integration into hospital programs and policies.
A working definition based on books and academic and practice literature was established as a foundational step to move forward in developing THGs as a valuable aspect of hospital design.
With the working definition in place, a comprehensive framework for THGs can now be developed that will guide the design, inform decision making, and direct the successful implementation of such gardens for the benefit of many.
Key Concepts
Significant health benefits can be gained when people are in contact with nature in the city. While gardens in hospitals are a common occurrence and the health promoting qualities of nature are well known, what makes hospital gardens therapeutic is yet to be well understood.
Twenty-eight peer-reviewed articles were critiqued for the period of 2016–2021 and updated with 12 articles from 2021 to 2023 to establish the latest research and development in this emergent field. Gardens in hospitals can reduce stress and anxiety and are therefore valued by users as a place for time out from the clinical hospital environment.
Many terms were used to describe gardens in hospitals, for example, nature experience, healing gardens and outdoor area. The review established two original findings. There is a need to 1) have consensus on terminology and 2) create design processes to move forward.
Because health-promoting hospital gardens are being built, the results from this review and the essence of exemplar practice literature were combined to produce a working definition of THGs. THGs can be a tool to improve well-being when they are purposefully designed and well-integrated in hospital programs and health policy.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-her-10.1177_19375867231187154 - Therapeutic Hospital Gardens: Literature Review and Working Definition
Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-her-10.1177_19375867231187154 for Therapeutic Hospital Gardens: Literature Review and Working Definition by Katharina Nieberler-Walker, Cheryl Desha, Caryl Bosman, Anne Roiko and Savindi Caldera in HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal
Supplemental Material
Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-2-her-10.1177_19375867231187154 - Therapeutic Hospital Gardens: Literature Review and Working Definition
Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-2-her-10.1177_19375867231187154 for Therapeutic Hospital Gardens: Literature Review and Working Definition by Katharina Nieberler-Walker, Cheryl Desha, Caryl Bosman, Anne Roiko and Savindi Caldera in HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal
Supplemental Material
Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-3-her-10.1177_19375867231187154 - Therapeutic Hospital Gardens: Literature Review and Working Definition
Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-3-her-10.1177_19375867231187154 for Therapeutic Hospital Gardens: Literature Review and Working Definition by Katharina Nieberler-Walker, Cheryl Desha, Caryl Bosman, Anne Roiko and Savindi Caldera in HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The authors team thanks writing expert Karyn Gonano for support in structuring and articulating the paper’s key points. The authors also thank librarian Sharron Stapleton for support in fine-tuning the database searches.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The first author was supported in undertaking this research project through a PhD Scholarship from Griffith University throughout the study and write-up period. The first author is the recipient of the 2022 Design for Health Scholarship awarded by the Australian Health Design Council to support her research over the next 3 years.
Supplemental Material
The supplemental material for this article is available online.
References
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.
