Perceived benefits of accessing a children’s sensory garden in a healthcare setting

Abstract

Objectives This pilot study aimed to explore the perceived benefits of a new children’s sensory garden in a healthcare centre in south-eastern Melbourne that provides specialised care, support and guidance to parents. Methods A mixed-method research design was employed in this study comprising a combination of quantitative (surveys) and qualitative (interviews) data collection methods. A total of 19 staff and 36 parents completed surveys relating to their experiences in the new garden. Results The staff members and parents surveyed were found to use the new children’s garden on a regular basis and suggested that the new garden provided them with an opportunity to escape and feel calmer and had positively impacted on their interactions with their child. Interviews were also undertaken with four staff members who indicated that they believe the new garden is affording them perceived personal wellbeing benefits and that the activities in the new garden led to better perceived outcomes for families. Conclusion The perceived benefits reported provide support for the development of sensory gardens at other similar healthcare facilities.

Opportunities for play in paediatric healthcare environments: a scoping review

“…The experiences and preferences of these individuals across all studies were gathered using qualitative (n = 7), quantitative (n = 4), or mixed methods (n = 7). Examples of common qualitative methods include arts-based activities (25,30,31,34), observations (30,31,35,37,39,42), and interviews (25-28, 31, 34, 35, 42), whereas quantitative studies mostly used validated questionnaires (32,33,37) and surveys (26,27,29,36,37,(39)(40)(41)(42). Two thirds of the reviewed studies (n = 12) reported on specific types of play spaces in hospital settings, including gardens (n = 7), designated play or recreational rooms (n = 4), and playgrounds (n = 1).…”

“…The experiences and preferences of these individuals across all studies were gathered using qualitative ( n = 7), quantitative ( n = 4), or mixed methods ( n = 7). Examples of common qualitative methods include arts-based activities ( 25 , 30 , 31 , 34 ), observations ( 30 , 31 , 35 , 37 , 39 , 42 ), and interviews ( 25 – 28 , 31 , 34 , 35 , 42 ), whereas quantitative studies mostly used validated questionnaires ( 32 , 33 , 37 ) and surveys ( 26 , 27 , 29 , 36 , 37 , 39 – 42 ).…”