ArticleHERD2025
A Pilot Mixed Methods Reimagination of Rural Critical Access Hospital Design Process.
Article in HERD, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
PurposeA pilot mixed methods facility environmental evaluation of a rural critical access hospital in Montana coupled with qualitative community interviews to identify areas of convergence and divergence of meaningful design changes to enhance hospital operations, service line offerings, and access.BackgroundMontana is the fourth largest state with a population of approximately one million residents. Most Montana residents live in geographically isolated rural or frontier communities with chronic healthcare provider shortages and critical access hospitals closing or at risk of closure. As many rural hospitals undergo renovations, there is a need for a holistic approach to align facility and community needs in an interpretable manner to both design teams and hospital leadership.MethodsEnvironmental evaluation was conducted using checklists for seven indicators of facility health: lighting; air quality; noise; infection control/prevention; information security; travel and wayfinding; and supply management. In tandem, qualitative semi-structured community resident interviews were conducted. Findings were synergistically interpreted in partnership with a community advisory board and hospital leadership.ResultsOf the seven environmental indicators, noise and lighting were most significant to local resident perspectives and attitudes to accessing care at the hospital. Residents noted the need for heightened safeguards to support privacy and confidentiality when individuals and family groups are familiar with one another in small towns.ConclusionsFindings in this study suggest rural healthcare facility design teams may benefit from a mixed methods approach and use of a rural culture-specific guiding conceptual framework to align decision-making with meaningful changes to enhance community engagement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.