Enhancing Patient Care Through Auditory and Tactile Stimuli in Interior Design

This systematic review looks at the effects of auditory and tactile stimuli in healthcare interior design on provider well-being and patient care. The study included studies that investigated the role of sensory factors such as sound and texture in healthcare facilities. The review included sixteen papers from various healthcare settings and discovered that auditory signals including natural sounds, therapeutic music, and noise reduction measures improved provider well-being by reducing anxiety and increasing job engagement.

Both auditory and tactile therapies were linked to improved patient outcomes, such as lower anxiety, greater sleep quality, and higher satisfaction levels. However, the research designs and methodologies varied; many were potentially biased. This article emphasizes the potential of auditory and tactile stimuli to improve provider well-being and patient outcomes.

The need for sensory architecture in healthcare

Sensory architecture enhances healthcare environments by addressing the physical and psychological needs of patients and providers (Yap et al., 2022). Sensory architecture transforms healthcare spaces into healing environments by creating a balance of stimuli that promote comfort, relaxation, and efficiency (Duarte, Gambera and Riccò, 2019).

When emotionally supportive professionals provide high-quality care, sensory design is vital to patient satisfaction and outcomes, therefore it is a need rather than a luxury in healthcare settings.

The ideas of sensory architecture are already being used in sophisticated healthcare facilities around the world, with promising results. Healing gardens, use natural sounds like birdsong or running water to produce calming auditory stimuli, and textured paths provide tactile stimulation for both patients and staff (Borges, 2020; Dushkova and Ignatieva, 2020; Ratcliffe, 2021). Sensory waiting rooms in pediatric and psychiatric care units have been designed to give multi-sensory stimulation, assisting children in managing stress and anxiety during treatments (Davies, Murphy and Sethi, 2020; Higuera-Trujillo et al., 2020). Hospitals also utilize noise-reduction strategies, such as sound mapping, noise source localization, and sound-absorbing materials in ceilings and walls (Navvab, 2020; Soni and Jhamar, 2024). This significantly reduces stress for both patients and staff, with a 3.8 decibel decrease demonstrating advantages (Ukegjini et al., 2020). Tactile design is also being used in patient rooms to improve comfort and accessibility by using soft, textured furnishings, handrails, and ergonomic furniture (Piatkowski et al., 2021).

Influence of interior design on tactile and auditory stimuli

Interior design is crucial for changing auditory and tactile experiences in healthcare settings. Tactile elements such as soft upholstery, textured walls, and ergonomically designed furniture promote both physical and psychological comfort (Piatkowski et al., 2021). These characteristics are especially beneficial for anyone with sensory sensitivity or mobility difficulties. Well-designed tactile features reduce physical and psychological strain on providers, resulting in a more pleasant work environment (Eftekhari and Ghomeishi, 2023). Audiovisual design is equally significant. Noise can be effectively reduced by implementing correctly designed acoustic solutions, such as sound-dampening panels and flooring materials (Raley, 2020; Soni and Jhamar, 2024). Furthermore, personalized soundscapes, such as soothing background music or nature sounds, aid clinician concentration and provide a more calming setting for patients (Fryburg, 2021).

Healthcare providers’ well-being is in many cases overlooked in facility design, despite its importance to patient care. Stressful conditions, such as bad acoustics and uncomfortable furniture, can cause provider fatigue and lower productivity (Fields et al., 2021). Meanwhile, patients recover at a slower rate in sterile, uncomfortable settings that neglect sensory needs (Beck et al., 2020). Sensory architecture has been used in some individual projects, but there’s still no clear framework for optimizing auditory and tactile elements in healthcare settings. This lack of a systematic approach often misses the opportunity to create designs that balance functionality with a human-centred focus, benefiting both healthcare providers and patients. This study aims to explore how auditory and tactile stimuli can be incorporated into healthcare design to improve the well-being of providers and enhance patient outcomes. The objective of this study is;

To systematically review the impact of auditory and tactile stimuli in healthcare interior design on provider well-being and patient care.

Auditory Stimulation in Healthcare Design for Patient Care

Auditory stimulation has a significant impact on the function and atmosphere of healthcare settings. According to Lo Castro et al. (2022), uncontrolled noise levels in hospitals from HVAC systems, alarms, paging, speech, phone calls, and diagnostic equipment disrupt focus and increase stress. This negatively affects both patient outcomes and physician performance. Yaghoubi et al.(2020) found that constant exposure to noise above 75 decibels resulted in increased cortisol levels, exacerbating stress in providers and delaying recovery in patients. For example, emergency rooms and intensive care units, which are inherently high-noise environments, see more frequent communication errors and caregiver fatigue due to poor acoustic design (Kebapcı and Güner, 2021). To combat noise issues, healthcare facilities are using many noise-reduction methods. Acoustic wall panels and sound-absorbing floors are increasingly popular (Raley, 2020). These upgrades not only lower noise but also improve privacy, making patients more comfortable during consultations. Additionally, calming soundscapes, like birdsong or soft music, effectively mask disruptive noise. A 20-minute musical intervention before cataract surgery lowers patient anxiety and anxiety-related hypertension by 20% (Guerrier et al., 2020). Innovative technologies, such as directional sound systems, are also being employed in waiting rooms to provide soothing aural experiences. White noise devices are used to conceal disturbing sounds, especially in nursing stations where uninterrupted focus is required (Warjri et al., 2022). These methods greatly enhance provider concentration, decision-making, and overall efficiency.

Tactile Stimulation in Healthcare Design

Tactile stimulation in healthcare environments is essential for fostering comfort, safety, and emotional well-being. The surfaces, materials, and textures used in interior design contribute significantly to users’ sensory experiences. Patients, particularly those undergoing long-term care, are sensitive to the tactile elements in their surroundings. Soft furnishings, textured walls, and ergonomic furniture contribute to a pleasant and peaceful environment that reduces anxiety and promotes relaxation (Piatkowski et al., 2021). Hertel et al. (2021) discovered that using an inflated air cushion during tomosynthesis breast imaging decreased patient pain by 18.4% while maintaining image quality. For providers, tactile design is equally critical. Ergonomically designed workstations and anti-fatigue mats reduce physical strain during long shifts (Mansoor, Al Arabia and Rathore, 2022; Ünver and Makal Orğan, 2023). Healthcare providers often experience back pain, leg fatigue, and other physical ailments due to poor workplace design, which diminishes their focus and efficiency (Zaheer et al., 2023). A well-designed tactile environment helps ease these concerns and improve the quality of care provided.  Tactile design is useful in specialized contexts such as pediatric wards and eldercare facilities. To help children cope with stress during medical treatments, pediatric wards regularly incorporate tactile stimulation into play areas, such as textured toys and sensory walls (Signorelli et al., 2023; Kim and Park, 2024). Textured flooring is used in elderly care facilities for wayfinding, providing visual and tactile cues to help people move around safely and reduce the chance of falling (Alam and Kim, 2023).

Impact on Provider Efficiency and Patient Care

The link between healthcare design and its impact on patient care and provider efficiency is widely established. Providers who are at the forefront of patient care frequently work in high-stress circumstances. Stress and burnout are unavoidable when interior settings are unsuitable for their well-being, such as high noise levels, poor ergonomics, or uninspiring design (Fields et al., 2021). Burnout in clinicians has been linked to increased medical errors, lower-quality treatment, and decreased efficiency and engagement, all of which have a negative influence on patient care (Shin et al., 2023). Patients, on the other hand, are extremely sensitive to their physical environment. Well-designed hospital rooms with sensory-friendly features including soothing colors, sound-absorbing materials, and comfortable furniture resulted in significantly greater patient recovery rates (Jamshidi, Parker and Hashemi, 2020). Patients in such environments reported better quality of life and quicker recovery times than those in general hospital rooms (Eminovic et al., 2022). These findings emphasize the importance of human-centered design in healthcare. Ergonomic workspaces, tactile-friendly materials, and low noise levels increase providers’ physical comfort and focus, helping them to do tasks more efficiently. According to Jin et al. (2023), healthcare teams who worked in well-designed workplaces reported reduced fatigue and better mental health. Such developments are immediately associated with improved patient outcomes, as clinicians can maintain higher levels of treatment quality (Nowrouzi-Kia et al., 2022).

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology

This systematic review was carried out following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology to guarantee a transparent and reproducible research procedure. The studies were selected based on the following criteria: (1) The primary focus was on auditory and/or tactile stimuli in healthcare interior design, (2) participants were healthcare providers or patients, (3) outcomes were measured as provider well-being, efficiency, or patient care, (4) the study was written in English, and (5) the study was published after 2015.

The following exclusion criteria were used: (1) research focusing on sensory stimuli outside of the auditory or tactile domains, (2) reviews or theoretical papers lacking empirical data, (3) studies lacking a healthcare setting background, and (4) articles that were not available in full text.

Search Strategy

A comprehensive search strategy was employed to identify relevant studies. Databases used included PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Search terms were developed using Boolean operators and included combinations of keywords such as “auditory stimuli,” “tactile stimuli,” “healthcare design,” “provider well-being,” and “patient care.” An example search query for PubMed was:

("auditory stimuli" OR "sound design") AND ("tactile stimuli" OR "touch design") AND ("healthcare" OR "hospital") AND ("provider well-being" OR "patient care")

The search was conducted by two researchers independently on 10 November 2024, and the strategy was reviewed by an information specialist.

Study Selection

All retrieved articles were managed using Rayyan software. After removing duplicates, the titles and abstracts were screened for relevance. Articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded. The remaining articles underwent full-text review, during which reasons for exclusion were documented. This process was carried out separately by two reviewers, with any disputes settled by conversation with a third. A total of 1,245 articles were found (412 from PubMed, 523 from Web of Science, and 310 from Scopus). Following the removal of 375 duplicates, 870 titles and abstracts were examined, and 808 irrelevant articles were excluded. Of the 62 full-text publications evaluated, 12 were inaccessible, and 34 were eliminated for a variety of reasons, leaving 16 articles for inclusion in the evaluation.

The data extracted contained the following: author (year), study type, sample, outcome, measurement, intervention, and results. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB2) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) for non-randomized studies. The results were classified as low, moderate, or high risk, and visual summaries were created with the Risk-of-bias VISualization tool (Robvis).

Study characteristics

This review includes papers published between 2015 and 2024 that used a variety of approaches, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), mixed-methods studies, quasi-experimental treatments, and quantitative and qualitative research. The sample sizes range from 30 to 496 people, including healthcare personnel, patients, and caregivers from various settings such as hospitals, intensive care units, and rehabilitation wards. The studies are conducted in a variety of countries, including the United States, Turkey, Iran, and South Korea.

Interventions examined in the studies involved sensory architecture elements such as acoustic modifications (e.g., nature sounds, white noise, therapeutic music, and environmental music therapy), tactile interventions (e.g., anti-fatigue mats, table design, and flooring materials), and multisensory design approaches (e.g., interior layouts, textures, and Feng Shui elements). These interventions were intended to improve the well-being and satisfaction of both healthcare staff and patients.

Standardized methods for assessing outcomes included the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). The findings repeatedly revealed that sensory-focused interior design reduces anxiety, improves sleep quality, increases job satisfaction, and fosters improved patient-provider interactions. Thus, the studies emphasize the necessity of including auditory and tactile stimulation in healthcare settings to promote provider well-being and patient outcomes.

Summary of Studies Included in Systematic Literature Review

Harris, 2015

Rossetti et al., 2023

Nasari, Ghezeljeh and Haghani, 2018

Schneider et al., 2015

Tavakkoli et al., 2015

Buchanan et al., 2018

Effects of Auditory Design Strategies on Patient Care

Auditory design strategies have emerged as a vital component of healthcare environments, impacting both provider well-being and patient care. The longitudinal comparative cohort study by Harris (2015) evaluated the effects of three different flooring materials on hospital staff and patients. The results were tracked for 42 weeks using sound meter data and HCAHPS assessments. Carpet tile flooring in hospital hallways reduced noise levels significantly more than terrazzo or rubber flooring. Lower sound levels were linked to higher satisfaction among both healthcare professionals and patients, implying that calmer environments improve provider focus and patient comfort, resulting in better patient care.

Harris (2015) carried out a mixed-methods study in intensive care units (SICU and PICU) with patients, caregivers, and staff. Live music sessions provided by EMTs lowered the impression of noise in these units. This intervention improved healthcare workers’ auditory surroundings, potentially reducing stress and improving their capacity to offer attentive care. Improved patient satisfaction and comfort were also noted, highlighting the overall benefits of auditory therapies.

Two randomized controlled trials investigated whether auditory therapies could enhance patients’ sleep quality. Nasari, Ghezeljeh and Haghani (2018) found that natural noises improved sleep quality in patients in the coronary care unit. Similarly, Cho and Hwang (2024) found that white noise had a similar effect on improving sleep quality.  Similarly, Afshar et al. (2016) discovered that exposure to white noise led to considerably improved sleep quality. Although these studies were carried out on patients, increasing patient sleep quality can indirectly benefit healthcare providers by reducing patient restlessness and allowing them to focus more effectively on their work.

Tavakkoli et al. (2015) and Çetin, Ballice and Ultav (2019) investigated how acoustic design in healthcare facilities affects worker well-being. Tavakkoli et al. (2015) observed that natural noises in hospitals, such as waterfalls and birds, boosted nurses’ mental health, job satisfaction, and general well-being. Çetin, Ballice and Ultav (2019) highlighted the role of sound-absorbing interior surfaces in enhancing satisfaction and well-being among doctors and nurses. These findings emphasize that thoughtfully designed auditory environments reduce stress and enhance the mental state of providers, creating a ripple effect on patient care quality.

Schneider et al. (2015) explored the effects of live therapeutic harp music on hospitalized patients with low quality-of-life scores. The intervention improved patients’ quality of life and reduced their symptoms. These outcomes alleviate the emotional burden on providers, fostering a more positive care environment. Similarly, Guerrier et al. (2020) discovered that musical therapy before cataract surgery decreased patient anxiety and hypertension-related events, potentially increasing staff productivity and decreasing provider stress.

Buchanan et al. (2018) studied hospital staff for 16 weeks with a unique auditory-related intervention called auricular acupuncture. This intervention reduced anxiety and enhanced workplace engagement among healthcare workers, emphasizing the need to address provider well-being to improve patient outcomes. Thus, auditory design strategies such as flooring materials, music therapy, natural sounds, and white noise improve both provider well-being and patient outcomes.

Effects of Tactile Design Strategies on Patient Care

Tactile design strategies have a significant impact in healthcare settings, influencing both provider well-being and patient care quality. A qualitative study conducted by Cetin, Ultav and Ballice (2018) discovered that interior design aspects such as layout, material selection, and furniture have a substantial impact on healthcare worker satisfaction. A well-designed workspace improves provider comfort and productivity, reduces workplace fatigue, and creates a more positive environment for patient care.

Similarly, Sadatsafavi, Walewski and Shepley (2015) emphasized the importance of tactile factors such as comfortable finishing materials and ergonomic furniture design in work and staff areas. These components contribute to a safer and more comfortable workplace, which healthcare practitioners value above aesthetic characteristics such as window views or artwork. Healthcare facilities can indirectly improve patient care quality by increasing provider satisfaction through tactile enhancements.

Ugur and Celik (2024) conducted a quasi-experimental study with 32 operating room nurses that focused on the use of anti-fatigue mats. The intervention reduced weekly pain intensity in nurses’ feet from moderate to mild and significantly improved fatigue levels (p < 0.001; Cohen’s d ≥0.8). Improved physical comfort and overall well-being enable nurses to remain more focused and energetic, which immediately benefits patient care. This enables them to complete their tasks more effectively and with better attention to detail.

Ajiboye et al. (2015) conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing typical consultation room layouts to experimental designs that substituted examination tables with pedestal tables. The redesigned spaces facilitated better interpersonal communication between healthcare providers and patients. Enhanced communication fosters trust and understanding, which are essential components of high-quality patient care. This study underscores how strategic tactile interventions in a room design can simultaneously improve provider and patient experiences.

In their mixed-methods study, Malhotra and Abrol (2024) discovered that tactile elements such as furniture, textures, patterns, and wayfinding improved user experiences for both staff and patients. These findings suggest that implementing tactile design principles can lead to a more supportive environment that fits all users’ emotional and psychological needs, hence improving overall care outcomes.

Finally, Bazley et al. (2016) determined the impact of Feng Shui features in waiting rooms. The study discovered that well-placed haptic design elements improved provider comfort as compared to traditional designs. A comfortable waiting area reduces provider stress, promoting better interactions with patients and improving the care environment. Thus, tactile design strategies ranging from ergonomic furniture and anti-fatigue mats to layout changes and multisensory enhancements play an important role in hospital environments.

Risk of biases in the studies

The majority of the RCT studies in this review showed a minimal risk of bias due to deviations from the intended interventions and missing outcome data. However, the procedures used to quantify outcomes in some research were more likely to be biased.

Non-RCTs demonstrated higher levels of bias, particularly in intervention classification and participant selection. The mixed-methods study lacked clarity in scheduling and recruitment, which could lead to selection bias. Furthermore, qualitative research had an unknown risk because it relied on self-reported data and used a variety of approaches.

Studies have consistently shown that sound-absorbing materials, natural noises, live music therapy, and sensory-enhancing design aspects increase healthcare provider satisfaction, decrease anxiety, improve work engagement, and provide a more comfortable work atmosphere. Furthermore, patient care benefits were observed, such as enhanced sleep quality, decreased anxiety, and greater overall satisfaction. Thus, this study emphasizes the role of sensory design in improving professional and patient experiences in healthcare environments.

Implications for Healthcare Providers

The findings on auditory and tactile design methods have major implications for healthcare professionals, underlining the importance of creating supportive environments that improve both staff well-being and patient care. A well-designed setting can help healthcare personnel reduce stress, increase job satisfaction, and improve interpersonal contact with patients. For example, employing sound-absorbing fabrics, live music therapies, or natural sounds such as waterfalls and birds has been demonstrated to reduce anxiety and improve focus, allowing caregivers to better manage their obligations. Tactile elements such as ergonomic furniture, anti-fatigue mats, and thoughtful room layouts can reduce physical strain, improve comfort, and increase energy levels, allowing healthcare workers to concentrate on detail. These enhancements not only benefit physicians’ emotional and physical health but also create a more favourable environment for patients. Healthcare facilities can indirectly improve patient outcomes by putting the comfort of healthcare providers first through auditory and tactile design principles. Providers in a calmer, more comfortable setting are more likely to provide attentive treatment, resulting in favourable experiences for both them and their patients. Thus, incorporating these design aspects into healthcare environments should be viewed as an investment in increasing overall care quality.

Challenges in Implementing Sensory Design

Implementation of sensory design into healthcare settings raises a variety of concerns. One significant hurdle is a lack of access to sensory resources and equipment (Wright et al., 2023). According to Backman et al. (2021), hospitals and clinics typically lack the resources to invest in cutting-edge sensory technologies such as therapeutic sound systems, soundproofing materials, and tactile furniture. This results in abnormalities in the use of sensory design in healthcare settings. Additionally, time constraints are a substantial hurdle (Groeneveld et al., 2018). Healthcare practitioners frequently work in high-pressure workplaces with tight schedules, allowing little time to experiment with or incorporate sensory interventions into their regular routines. Environmental music therapy and interior space refurbishment, for example, may require more preparation and time (Backman et al., 2021). Another issue is a lack of staff awareness about the benefits of sensory architecture (Jakob and Collier, 2017). Without sufficient education, healthcare workers may be unable to completely comprehend how aspects such as calming noises or tactile settings might affect patient care and mental wellness. This information gap causes resistance or underutilization of current resources. Finally, there is a widespread notion that sensory techniques are ineffective or are not the duty of healthcare professionals (Wright et al., 2023). Many doctors prioritize clinical responsibilities over environmental issues, viewing sensory design as optional rather than necessary for patient care.

Auditory Design Recommendations for Patient Care

Healthcare providers should prioritize noise reduction in their facilities, implementing sound-absorbing materials like carpet tiles and acoustic panels in high-traffic areas. This lowers distractions, resulting in a quieter work environment that encourages attention and patient comfort. Natural sounds, such as waterfalls or bird calls, can be blended into digital soundscapes to assist create a relaxing environment, reducing stress for both staff and patients. Music therapy programs should also be implemented in specific units, such as intensive care or preoperative rooms, to improve the auditory environment and emotional well-being. Offering personalized auditory therapies, such as white noise machines or playlists suited to patient preferences, can help improve sleep quality and relaxation, thereby benefiting healthcare personnel by assuring patient restfulness. Finally, training health professionals on the importance of sound control and offering resources such as noise-cancelling headphones can help critical care staff retain focus and reduce stress throughout shifts.

Tactile Design Recommendations for Patient Care

Healthcare providers should increase staff comfort and reduce physical fatigue by investing in ergonomic furniture such as chairs and workstations. Anti-fatigue mats should be installed in operating rooms and high-traffic standing areas to reduce physical strain and improve provider health. Creating staff rooms with comforting, tactile materials, such as soft upholstery and long-lasting, comfortable flooring, helps to create a warm and welcoming workplace. Redesigning consultation and exam rooms could improve physician-patient relationships. For example, replacing traditional exam tables with pedestal tables might encourage open communication and trust. Tactile elements, like as textured wall finishes or wayfinding aids, can contribute to making environments more intuitive and less stressful for patients and employees. Finally, providers should continually inspect and update the tactile features of healthcare facilities to ensure that they meet the changing demands of staff and patients, resulting in a well-balanced atmosphere that promotes care delivery.

Limitations of the Review

This review acknowledges several limitations that impact the comprehensiveness and generalizability of its findings. Firstly, the scope of research was confined to peer-reviewed journals, potentially overlooking significant insights from grey literature and non-traditional sources. Additionally, the review focused exclusively on articles written in English, which may have excluded valuable studies conducted in other languages. The methodologies, assessment techniques, and therapies discussed in the reviewed studies varied widely, ranging from environmental music therapy to the use of anti-fatigue mats, making direct comparisons challenging and broad conclusions difficult to draw.

A significant concern arises from the reliance on self-reported data and subjective outcomes in many studies, which increases the possibility of bias and questions the reliability of the findings. Furthermore, the review concentrated only on auditory and tactile interventions, neglecting other critical sensory design factors such as lighting and temperature, which play a substantial role in shaping the experiences of healthcare personnel and patients. Lastly, the studies included often featured small sample sizes or were limited to specific geographic regions, restricting the applicability of the results to larger or more diverse healthcare settings. To overcome these limitations, future research should prioritize rigorous, large-scale randomized controlled trials that incorporate diverse populations, contexts, and sensory design treatments.

References

• Afshar, P.F. et al. (2016) ‘Effect of White Noise on Sleep in Patients Admitted to a Coronary Care’, Journal of Caring Sciences, 5(2), pp. 103–109. Available at: https://doi.org/10.15171/jcs.2016.011.
• Ajiboye, F. et al. (2015) ‘Effects of Revised Consultation Room Design on Patient–Physician Communication’, HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 8(2), pp. 8–17. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1937586714565604.
• Alam, S. and Kim, D. (2023) ‘Navigating the Maze: Caregivers Perception on Design Elements to Improve Wayfinding for Older Adults With Dementia in Long-Term Care Facilities’, HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 16(4), pp. 132–145. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/19375867231185851.
• Backman, C. et al. (2021) ‘Impact of sensory interventions on the quality of life of long-term care residents: a scoping review’, BMJ Open, 11(3), p. e042466. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042466.
• Bazley, C. et al. (2016) ‘Interior effects on comfort in healthcare waiting areas’, Work, 54(4), pp. 791–806. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-162347.
• Beck, M. et al. (2020) ‘Becoming a nomad when hospitalized with a neurological disease: a phenomenological study’, International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 15(1), p. 1815487. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2020.1815487.
• Borges, M. de A. (2020) ‘Designing inclusive hospital wayfinding’, in Industry 4.0 – Shaping The Future of The Digital World. CRC Press.
• Buchanan, T.M. et al. (2018) ‘Reducing Anxiety and Improving Engagement in Health Care Providers Through an Auricular Acupuncture Intervention’, Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing, 37(2), p. 87. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1097/DCC.0000000000000288.
• Çetin, Ç., Ballice, G. and Ultav, Z.T. (2019) ‘SATISFACTION OF HEALTHCARE STAFF WITH THE QUALITY OF WORKING AND RESTING AREAS: HEALTHCARE INTERIORS IN THE CITY OF İZMİR, TURKEY’, Gazi University Journal of Science Part B: Art Humanities Design and Planning, 7(3), pp. 365–385.
• Cetin, C., Ultav, Z.T. and Ballice, G. (2018) ‘The Effects of Interior Design Parameters on the Design Quality of Nurse Stations’, Athens Journal of Architecture, 4(2), pp. 149–170. Available at: https://doi.org/10.30958/aja.4-2-1.
• Cho, M.E. and Hwang, S.K. (2024) ‘The Effect of White Noise on Sleep in Hospitalized Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial’, Korean Journal of Adult Nursing, 33(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.7475/kjan.2021.33.1.44.
• Davies, R., Murphy, K. and Sethi, F. (2020) ‘Sensory room in a psychiatric intensive care unit’, Journal of Psychiatric Intensive Care, 16(1), pp. 23–28. Available at: https://doi.org/10.20299/jpi.2019.016.
• Duarte, E., Gambera, D.A. and Riccò, D. (2019) ‘Beyond the Five Senses: A Synaesthetic-Design Approach to Humanize Healthcare Environments’, in T.P. Cotrim et al. (eds) Health and Social Care Systems of the Future: Demographic Changes, Digital Age and Human Factors. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 16–22. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24067-7_2.
• Dushkova, D. and Ignatieva, M. (2020) ‘New trends in urban environmental health research: from geography of diseases to therapeutic landscapes and healing gardens’, Geography, Environment, Sustainability, 13(1), pp. 159–171. Available at: https://doi.org/10.24057/2071-9388-2019-99.
• Eftekhari, M. and Ghomeishi, M. (2023) ‘Evaluation of Multisensory Interactions Between the Healing Built Environment and Nurses in Healthcare Nursing Stations: Case Study of Tehran Hospitals’, HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 16(3), pp. 210–237. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/19375867231166691.
• Eminovic, S. et al. (2022) ‘Positive effect of colors and art in patient rooms on patient recovery after total hip or knee arthroplasty’, Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 134(5), pp. 221–226. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00508-021-01936-6.
• Fields, J. et al. (2021) ‘93EMF Understanding the Relationship Between the Emergency Department Built Environment and Physician Burnout Through High Fidelity Virtual Reality Modeling’, Annals of Emergency Medicine, 78(4), pp. S38–S39.
• Fryburg, D.A. (2021) ‘What’s Playing in Your Waiting Room? Patient and Provider Stress and the  Impact of Waiting Room Media’, Journal of Patient Experience, 8, p. 23743735211049880. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/23743735211049880.
• Groeneveld, B. et al. (2018) ‘Challenges for design researchers in healthcare’, Design for Health, 2(2), pp. 305–326. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/24735132.2018.1541699.
• Guerrier, G. et al. (2020) ‘Musical intervention reduces anxiety-related hypertensive events during cataract surgery: A randomized controlled trial’, Perioperative Care and Operating Room Management, 20, p. 100126. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcorm.2020.100126.
• Harris, D.D. (2015) ‘The Influence of Flooring on Environmental Stressors: A Study of Three Flooring Materials in a Hospital’, HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 8(3), pp. 9–29. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1937586715573730.
• Hertel, M. et al. (2021) ‘Clinical study for evaluation of an inflatable air cushion to reduce patient discomfort during tomosynthesis compression’, Medical Imaging 2021: Physics of Medical Imaging, 11595. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2580711.
• Higuera-Trujillo, J.L. et al. (2020) ‘Multisensory stress reduction: a neuro-architecture study of paediatric waiting rooms’, Building Research & Information, 48(3), pp. 269–285. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2019.1612228.
• Jakob, A. and Collier, L. (2017) ‘Sensory enrichment for people living with dementia: increasing the benefits of multisensory environments in dementia care through design’, Design for Health, 1(1), pp. 115–133. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/24735132.2017.1296274.
• Jamshidi, S., Parker, J.S. and Hashemi, S. (2020) ‘The effects of environmental factors on the patient outcomes in hospital environments: A review of literature’, Frontiers of Architectural Research, 9(2), pp. 249–263. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2019.10.001.
• Jin, H.-Y. et al. (2023) ‘The Role of Healthcare Facility Design on the Mental Health of Healthcare Professionals: A Literature Review’, HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 16(1), pp. 270–286. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/19375867221118685.
• Kebapcı, A. and Güner, P. (2021) ‘“Noise Factory”: A qualitative study exploring healthcare providers’ perceptions of noise in the intensive care unit’, Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, 63, p. 102975. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2020.102975.
• Kim, S.J. and Park, S.B. (2024) ‘A Study on the Children’s Play Behaviors for Children’s Hospital Waiting Space Design’, Journal of the Korean Institute of Interior Design, 29(4), pp. 3–13. Available at: https://doi.org/10.14774/JKIID.2020.29.3.065.
• Lo Castro, F. et al. (2022) ‘Surveys on Noise in Some Hospital Wards and Self-Reported Reactions from Staff: A Case Study’, Buildings, 12(12), p. 2077. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122077.
• Malhotra, A. and Abrol, M. (2024) ‘DESIGNING FOR THE SENSES: MULTISENSORY APPROACHES IN THERAPEUTIC CLINICAL SPACES’, ShodhKosh: Journal of Visual and Performing Arts, 5(6), pp. 803–813.
• Mansoor, S.N., Al Arabia, D.H. and Rathore, F.A. (2022) ‘Ergonomics and musculoskeletal disorders among health care professionals: Prevention is better than cure’, JPMA The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 72(6), pp. 1243–1245. Available at: https://doi.org/10.47391/jpma.22-76.
• Nasari, M., Ghezeljeh, T.N. and Haghani, H. (2018) ‘Effects of Nature Sounds on Sleep Quality among Patients Hospitalized in Coronary Care Units: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial’, Nursing and Midwifery Studies, 7(1), p. 18. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4103/nms.nms_39_17.
• Navvab, M. (2020) ‘Exploratory analysis of noise reduction solutions in a psychiatric ward using beamforming techniques’, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 148(4), pp. 2441–2441. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5146734.
• Nowrouzi-Kia, B. et al. (2022) ‘Factors associated with work performance and mental health of healthcare workers during pandemics: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, Journal of Public Health, 44(4), pp. 731–739. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdab173.
• Piatkowski, M. et al. (2021) ‘Designing a Patient Room as a Fall Protection Strategy: The Perspectives of Healthcare Design Experts’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(16), p. 8769. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168769.
• Raley, M. (2020) ‘Flooring impact sound: An overview of the new test standard, its application for healthcare design, and potential updates to the standard’, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 148(4), p. 2439. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5146729.
• Ratcliffe, E. (2021) ‘Sound and Soundscape in Restorative Natural Environments: A Narrative Literature Review’, Frontiers in Psychology, 12. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.570563.
• Rossetti, A. et al. (2023) ‘Effects of Live Music on the Perception of Noise in the SICU/PICU: A Patient, Caregiver, and Medical Staff Environmental Study’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(4), p. 3499. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043499.
• Sadatsafavi, H., Walewski, J. and Shepley, M.M. (2015) ‘Factors influencing evaluation of patient areas, work spaces, and staff areas by healthcare professionals’, Indoor and Built Environment, 24(4), pp. 439–456. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X13514868.
• Schneider, D.M. et al. (2015) ‘Application of Therapeutic Harp Sounds for Quality of Life Among Hospitalized Patients’, Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 49(5), pp. 836–845. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2014.09.012.
• Shin, P. et al. (2023) ‘Time Out: The Impact of Physician Burnout on Patient Care Quality and Safety in Perioperative Medicine’, The Permanente Journal, 27(2), pp. 160–168. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7812/TPP/23.015.
• Signorelli, C. et al. (2023) ‘A Review of Creative Play Interventions to Improve Children’s Hospital Experience and Wellbeing’, Hospital Pediatrics, 13(11), pp. e355–e364. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2022-006994.
• Soni, AR.S. and Jhamar, P. (2024) ‘Exploring the Therapeutic Potential of Acoustic Interventions in Healing Environments – IJSREM’, International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management, 8(4). Available at: https://ijsrem.com/download/exploring-the-therapeutic-potential-of-acoustic-interventions-in-healing-environments/ (Accessed: 3 January 2025).
• Tavakkoli, S. et al. (2015) ‘Environmental Psychology Effects on Mental Health Job Satisfaction and Personal Well Being of Nurses’, Iranian Journal of Psychiatry, 10(3), pp. 158–164.
• Ugur, N. and Celik, S. (2024) ‘The Effects of Usage Anti-Fatigue Mat and Foot Bath on Fatigue and Lower Extremity Pain Among Operating Room Nurses’, International Journal of Caring Sciences, 17(3), p. 1731.
• Ukegjini, K. et al. (2020) ‘Impact of intraoperative noise measurement on the surgeon stress and patient outcomes. A prospective, controlled, single-center clinical trial with 664 patients’, Surgery, 167(5), pp. 843–851. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2019.12.010.
• Ünver, S. and Makal Orğan, E. (2023) ‘The effect of anti-fatigue floor mat on pain and fatigue levels of surgical team members: A crossover study’, Applied Ergonomics, 110, p. 104017. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2023.104017.
• Warjri, E. et al. (2022) ‘Impact of a white noise app on sleep quality among critically ill patients’, Nursing in Critical Care, 27(6), pp. 815–823. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12742.
• Wright, L. et al. (2023) ‘Planning for Change: Co-Designing Implementation Strategies to Improve the Use of Sensory Approaches in an Acute Psychiatric Unit’, Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 44(10), pp. 960–973. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840.2023.2236712.
• Yaghoubi, K. et al. (2020) ‘The relationship between noise annoyance and salivary cortisol’, Applied Acoustics, 160, p. 107131. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2019.107131.
• Yap, S.F. (Crystal) et al. (2022) ‘Transforming healthcare service environments: a sensory-based approach’, Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 32(5), pp. 673–700. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-02-2022-0033.
• Yatmo, Y.A., Atmodiwirjo, P. and Harahap, M.M.Y. (2020) ‘Hand touches on the surfaces of a healthcare waiting area’, The Journal of Hospital Infection, 105(2), pp. 383–385. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2020.04.042.
• Zaheer, S. et al. (2023) ‘Patterns of musculoskeletal disorders in health care providers and their association with ergonomic risks’, International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 29(4), pp. 1523–1531. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2022.2154483.