4 ms·

Before everyone piles in with their opinion, has anyone actually found the research mentioned in this article? I've searched quite thoroughly, but I can't find

Before everyone piles in with their opinion, has anyone actually found the research mentioned in this article? I've searched quite thoroughly, but I can't find any sign that it has actually been published anywhere. I did find the paper from 2004 and was not impressed. http://www.publicartonline.org.uk/resources/research/documents/ChelseaAndWestminsterResearchproject.pdf http://www.publicartonline.org.uk/resources/research/documen...

arkades 7y ago
I tried, and could not. And I’m baseline a little skeptical because the NHS has a history of pushing very poorly designed fad research precisely like this.
protomyth 7y ago
This [1] at least has an reference section, but most of the actual research listed is based on audio not visual. I suspect that this article is an advertisement for Chelsea and Westminster Hospital’s new book, The Healing Arts which is available from Unicorn Publishing Group. I get the feeling any data, if available, is in the book. 1) http://www.lahf.org.uk/sites/default/files/Chelsea%20and%20Westminster%20Literature%20Review%20Staricoff%20and%20Clift%20FINAL.pdf http://www.lahf.org.uk/sites/default/files/Chelsea%20and%20W...
- DanBC 7y ago
  I spent a lot of time in Chelsea and Westminster and it's not a very nice hospital. The burns unit was clean, bright and airy. But there were limited activity available because of infection control reasons, and the layout of the hospital was hostile to physical activity. Using the stairs was hard, all the signs and designs pushed you to the elevators. And those had been programmed incorrectly so they took an age to arrive and the to get you to your floor. As far as built environments for burns units go it was better than Birmingham Shelly Oak (Victorian building, excellent care because military connection), better than Bristol Frenchay (awful care, I think they've knocked it down now), but not as good as Salisbury (better layout, good care). This is a severe problem for the NHS: The amount of estate that's just terrible is surprising.
gwillen 7y ago
Indeed not, and I am EXTREMELY skeptical of the claim that birth times are reduced TWO HOURS (!!!) by the addition of art. That's the kind of effect you see in papers that get retracted for outright fraud, let alone dubious and irreproducible studies.
- chiefalchemist 7y ago
  Don't discount the placebo effect. Just because you can't see it, just because you can't measure it, don't mean something doesn't exist. The placebo effect is scientifically recognized. It is real. Let's be mindful not to dismiss it - like it or not.
  - ekianjo 7y ago
    It does exist but a lot of times regression to the mean is wrongly identified as placebo effect. Its rampant in observational studies.
- tokai 7y ago
  I think this is the paper on the birth time. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030399210000654 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003039921...
  - jdietrich 7y ago
    Unblinded (somewhat unavoidable), informal randomisation, n=26, the sole author is an interior designer with no scientific training. Paper states an "average" difference in birth times of 2.1 hours (not clear if mean or median), no SDs or p-value stated. Published in Optics & Laser Technology for some reason; the editorial board appears to be entirely comprised of engineers.
    - LeifCarrotson 7y ago
      On the plus side, at the very least the same hospital and hospital rooms were used. I initially assumed they were comparing an expensive, spacious upper-class hospital full of art with a run-down brutalist Medicaid hospital, and conflating sampling bias with causality.

arkades 7y ago

I tried, and could not. And I’m baseline a little skeptical because the NHS has a history of pushing very poorly designed fad research precisely like this.

protomyth 7y ago

This [1] at least has an reference section, but most of the actual research listed is based on audio not visual. I suspect that this article is an advertisement for Chelsea and Westminster Hospital’s new book, The Healing Arts which is available from Unicorn Publishing Group. I get the feeling any data, if available, is in the book. 1) http://www.lahf.org.uk/sites/default/files/Chelsea%20and%20Westminster%20Literature%20Review%20Staricoff%20and%20Clift%20FINAL.pdf http://www.lahf.org.uk/sites/default/files/Chelsea%20and%20W...

DanBC 7y ago
I spent a lot of time in Chelsea and Westminster and it's not a very nice hospital. The burns unit was clean, bright and airy. But there were limited activity available because of infection control reasons, and the layout of the hospital was hostile to physical activity. Using the stairs was hard, all the signs and designs pushed you to the elevators. And those had been programmed incorrectly so they took an age to arrive and the to get you to your floor. As far as built environments for burns units go it was better than Birmingham Shelly Oak (Victorian building, excellent care because military connection), better than Bristol Frenchay (awful care, I think they've knocked it down now), but not as good as Salisbury (better layout, good care). This is a severe problem for the NHS: The amount of estate that's just terrible is surprising.

gwillen 7y ago

Indeed not, and I am EXTREMELY skeptical of the claim that birth times are reduced TWO HOURS (!!!) by the addition of art. That's the kind of effect you see in papers that get retracted for outright fraud, let alone dubious and irreproducible studies.

chiefalchemist 7y ago
Don't discount the placebo effect. Just because you can't see it, just because you can't measure it, don't mean something doesn't exist. The placebo effect is scientifically recognized. It is real. Let's be mindful not to dismiss it - like it or not.
- ekianjo 7y ago
  It does exist but a lot of times regression to the mean is wrongly identified as placebo effect. Its rampant in observational studies.
tokai 7y ago
I think this is the paper on the birth time. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030399210000654 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003039921...
- jdietrich 7y ago
  Unblinded (somewhat unavoidable), informal randomisation, n=26, the sole author is an interior designer with no scientific training. Paper states an "average" difference in birth times of 2.1 hours (not clear if mean or median), no SDs or p-value stated. Published in Optics & Laser Technology for some reason; the editorial board appears to be entirely comprised of engineers.
  - LeifCarrotson 7y ago
    On the plus side, at the very least the same hospital and hospital rooms were used. I initially assumed they were comparing an expensive, spacious upper-class hospital full of art with a run-down brutalist Medicaid hospital, and conflating sampling bias with causality.