Can the presence of green space in urban environments reduce the frequency of violent crime? To ascertain the evidence on this topic, we conducted an in-depth literature review using the PRISMA checklist. The search parameters included US articles written in English and published since 2000. More than 30,000 potential paper titles were identified and ultimately, 45 papers were selected for inclusion. Green spaces typically comprised tree cover, parks and ground cover. Criminal behaviors typically included murder, assault, and theft. The majority of the research reviewed involved quantitative methods (e.g., comparison of green space area to crime data). We extracted multiple mechanisms from the literature that may account for the impact of green space on crime including social interaction and recreation, community perception, biophilic stress reduction, climate modulation, and spaces expressing territorial definition. Recommendations are made for future research, such as meta-analysis of existing data and the development of grounded theory through qualitative data-gathering methods. By providing evidence that access to nature has a mitigating impact on violence in urban settings, city governments and communities are empowered to support these interventions.

Objective: This Methods column describes the existing reporting standards for qualitative research, their application to health design research, and the challenges to implementation. Intended for both researchers and practitioners, this article provides multiple perspectives on both reporting and evaluating high-quality qualitative research. Background: Two popular reporting standards exist for reporting qualitative research—the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) and the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR). Though compiled using similar procedures, they differ in their criteria and the methods to which they apply. Creating and applying reporting criteria is inherently difficult due to the undefined and fluctuating nature of qualitative research when compared to quantitative studies. Conclusions: Qualitative research is expansive and occasionally controversial, spanning many different methods of inquiry and epistemological approaches. A “one-size-fits-all” standard for reporting qualitative research can be restrictive, but COREQ and SRQR both serve as valuable tools for developing responsible qualitative research proposals, effectively communicating research decisions, and evaluating submissions. Ultimately, tailoring a set of standards specific to health design research and its frequently used methods would ensure quality research and aid reviewers in their evaluations.

The primary goal of this research was to evaluate a physical full-scale, high-fidelity mockup of a mental and behavioral health (MBH) inpatient room and bathroom. There is minimal research on design for MBH and no published research using mockups to evaluate a MBH design proposal. To address this gap, an interdisciplinary team developed an ideal Patient-Centered MBH Patient Room, which was built as a mockup at a Veterans Administration (VA) facility and evaluated by patients and staff in situ. The mock-up was evaluated using a structured mixed methods process that incorporates feedback using Feedback Forms and facilitated Listening Sessions. Our two primary hypotheses were that the design, as represented by the mock-up, would be positively evaluated and that there would be a difference between staff and patient perceptions, with patients rating the design higher than staff. Quantitative analysis confirmed our hypotheses, revealing an overall positive response, with a difference between patients and staff. Contrary to hypothesis, staff consistently rated the design higher than patients. Qualitative analysis found mixed reception of the design and three primary themes: safety, homeyness/deinstitutionalization, and positive distraction/nature. Physical mock-ups may be an effective tool for evaluation of a proposed design; however, staff perceptions of the environment may differ from those of patients. One drawback of using a physical high-fidelity mock-up is the expectation that the mock-up perfectly represents the proposed design. With this project, even small unfinished details were distracting to the participants and may have negatively affected the evaluation.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate how environmental affordances in the behavioral health inpatient milieu affect a patient's sense of autonomy. Background: Patients who feel empowered are more likely to participate in their care, which can, in turn, improve the quality of care (Ippolito et al. 2020). However, the lack of patient empowerment can have negative consequences in behavioral health facilities such as intensified physical violence, aggression, and loneliness in the milieu (Bellman et al., 2022; Dell et al., 2019; Hickmann et al. 2022). Research has also demonstrated that patient empowerment is closely linked to patient autonomy (Gagné, 2003; Hodgins et al., 2006). However, there is little insight as to how milieu spaces can foster patient autonomy. Methods: This study utilizes a triangulated methodology to conduct a post occupancy evaluation through an on-site environmental assessment and behavioral observations within key milieu spaces. Results: The results demonstrated that access to scenic views, tactile features, patient's ability to move freely throughout the unit, and access to immediate provider care were significant indicators that differentiated patient autonomy between facilities. The behavioral observations showed that negative behaviors occurred around the edges of the milieu as well as when external stressors were involved. The autonomy score findings encapsulated by the designer evaluation were also closely associated with the frequency of positive behaviors observed by staff. Conclusion: Outcomes include responsive design recommendations for design implementation.