2 results
Architecture and health
- from Psychology, health and illness
-
- By Angela Liegey Dougall, University of Pittsburgh, Stacie Spencer, University of Pittsburgh, Andrew Baum, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
- Edited by Susan Ayers, University of Sussex, Andrew Baum, University of Pittsburgh, Chris McManus, Stanton Newman, Kenneth Wallston, John Weinman, Robert West
-
- Book:
- Cambridge Handbook of Psychology, Health and Medicine
- Published online:
- 18 December 2014
- Print publication:
- 23 August 2007, pp 23-26
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Overview
Architecture can be considered in many ways, as art or aesthetic stimuli, as an expression of societal pride or aspiration, and as a way of structuring interior and exterior spaces to facilitate their use by human occupants. This latter function of architectural design has strong but modifiable effects on social behaviour and users' mood and productivity and, to some extent, design features also affect health and wellbeing. Too often, however, these important sources of influence are ignored or not recognized, despite repeated demonstrations of these effects. While much remains to be done, research has identified several architectural features that appear to be associated with mood and health. Design characteristics or the way space is structured, presence or absence of windows and illumination all appear to affect people. For some features, the relationship to health is indirect (e.g. small, crowded work spaces may result in stress that may in turn affect health) while for other features the relationship to health is more direct (e.g. eye strain from poor lighting, illness from exposure to fumes).
The structural design or arrangement of space imposes restrictions on behaviour. Doorways determine our access to a room and room dimensions restrict the kinds of behaviours that can take place inside a room. As a result, one of the most important goals when designing a building is to match the built environment with the needs of the individuals for whom the environment is designed.
Post-traumatic stress disorder
- from Medical topics
-
- By Donna Posluszny, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Stacie Spencer, University of Pittsburgh, Andrew Baum, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
- Edited by Susan Ayers, University of Sussex, Andrew Baum, University of Pittsburgh, Chris McManus, Stanton Newman, Kenneth Wallston, John Weinman, Robert West
-
- Book:
- Cambridge Handbook of Psychology, Health and Medicine
- Published online:
- 18 December 2014
- Print publication:
- 23 August 2007, pp 814-820
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The history of medicine, occupational health and psychiatry has been punctuated by recurring themes related to what is now called post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). For several centuries, aversions to, and maladies from, extremely stressful events have been described, but clues to their causes have only recently been discovered. Previously called ‘railway spine’, ‘battle fatigue’ and ‘shellshock’, post-traumatic stress syndromes have been a topic for speculation and diagnosis when no other label will suffice. Over the past 30 years, investigation of traumatic stress has exploded and a substantial mass of research evidence has been gathered. Initially, this was primarily due to an interest in the uniquely pervasive symptoms of Vietnam veterans. However, tragedy is not limited to war and the development of PTSD is not limited to soldiers. The recent proliferation of PTSD research in diverse populations has added to the understanding of PTSD as a mental health disorder, to our understanding of human reactions to stress, and to knowledge about possible links between mental and physical health.
PTSD first appeared in the third version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (APA, 1980) and was clarified in DSM-IIIR (APA, 1987). Prior to this time, it was believed that prolonged reaction to a traumatic event was due to pre-existing personal weakness (McFarlane, 1990; Tomb, 1994). However, with the accumulation of data indicating a consistency in reactions to combat and non-combat traumatic events, it became apparent that the nature of the traumatic event plays an important role in the reaction to that event.