ReviewFrontiers in pediatrics2025
Current trends in art and design for paediatric wellness in built environments (2020-2025): a thematic review.
Review in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Children in non-clinical healthcare environment: insights from a multi-method qualitative approach.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Art and design interventions are increasingly recognized as necessary for paediatric wellness in built environments (e.g., hospitals and schools). However, current literature is fragmented, lacking a holistic integration of design strategies to address children's psychological, sensory, and physical needs. This review addresses that gap by systematically examining recent studies linking design strategies to paediatric well-being. We aimed to identify prevailing trends and themes in publications from 2020 to 2025. Using a systematic thematic review approach (TreZ), we searched Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, identifying 25 relevant studies after applying strict inclusion criteria. Five major thematic domains emerged: (1) biophilic and nature-based design, (2) playful and interactive environments, (3) sensory and emotional design, (4) inclusive and family-centred design, and (5) aesthetic, cultural, and identity-oriented design. The findings reveal a lack of interdisciplinary integration and limited empirical validation of current design approaches. This review underscores the need for cross-thematic integration, greater child participation in design, rigorous post-occupancy evaluation, and exploration of smart technologies to create more restorative, health-supportive environments for children.
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.