ArticleBMC health services research2026
Integrating outdoor environments into health service delivery at residential care facilities for older adults.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOutdoor environments may support everyday activities, person-centred care and rehabilitation, and health and well-being among older adults in residential care facilities (RCFs). However, how they can be integrated into routine health service delivery remains underexplored. This study aimed to explore how outdoor environments can support everyday activities and person-centred care and rehabilitation in RCFs, and to identify perceived benefits and barriers to their use in routine health service delivery.
methodsA qualitative study was conducted using individual walking interviews with older adults and focus group walking interviews with care workers at three Swedish RCFs. Data were organised according to the model of four zones in contact with the outdoors: indoor environments with windows (Zone 1), transitional outdoor environments (Zone 2), gardens (Zone 3), and the surroundings (Zone 4). Everyday activities, care and rehabilitation were identified across the zones, together with perceived benefits and barriers. Practices were distinguished as either currently occurring or potential uses.
resultsAll four zones offered opportunities for everyday activities, care and rehabilitation, including social interaction, recreation, physical activity, contact with nature, health conversations, and assessments. Perceived benefits included stimulation, enjoyment, social interaction, sensory experiences, and contact with nature. However, use was limited by physical, seasonal, organisational, informational, and social barriers. The findings indicate a gap between the opportunities outdoor environments offer and their integration into everyday routines.
conclusionOutdoor environments are a valuable but underutilized resource in RCFs. Their integration into routine health service delivery requires access to accessible environments, supportive organisational routines, and care workers with sufficient time, knowledge, and support. The identified practices across the four zones may provide practical inspiration for using outdoor environments in everyday activities and person-centred care and rehabilitation.
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.