Hospital-Oriented Development (HOD): A Quantitative Morphological Analysis for Collaborative Development of Healthcare and Daily Life

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article proposes the new concept of Hospital-Oriented Development (HOD) and constructs an evaluation framework and prototype based on multi-sourced data, attempting to fill the research gap on the collaborative development of hospitals and their surrounding spaces. This is a topic of practical significance and strong policy orientation, with particular relevance under the background of urban renewal and healthy city construction in China. The paper is well-structured, the methodological framework is clearly presented, the results are supported by empirical evidence, and concrete planning recommendations are provided.However, the article still requires improvement in terms of argumentation of innovation, methodological justification, and interpretation of results.

1. The authors innovatively put forward the concept of HOD. Please further clarify how this concept differs from and advances beyond existing frameworks such as Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), community-life circle planning, and hospital accessibility. Its theoretical implications should also be elaborated.

2. The paper states that Xiaohongshu user reviews were used to select samples, but basic information is lacking. How were the keywords determined? What is the timeframe and number of comments? Could there be selection bias? Compared with prior use of social media data such as Weibo, what is the methodological contribution here?

3. Please explain the criteria and rationale used for hospital classification.

4. The results section (e.g., boxplots, heatmaps, confidence intervals) presents numerical outcomes, but their concrete implications within this study are insufficiently discussed. A deeper interpretation is needed.

5. Please refine the language. The manuscript contains many long sentences that affect readability. Terminology should also be used consistently, and the entire text should be carefully checked for uniform expression.

Author Response

Honorable Reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your insightful comments have been valuable in helping us improve the quality of our work. 
Following your guidance, we have undertaken a comprehensive revision and please see the attachment for the point-by-point responses and revisions. Besides, all revisions in the revised manuscript have been marked in yellow for your convenience.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Regarding Abstract for manuscript understanding:

CONTEXTUALIZATION (???)

The lack of clarity in the context makes it impossible to fully understand it.

“Accompanying with the Chinese urbanization from 'quantity-oriented expansion' to-13 wards 'human-centered development', the collaborative development of healthcare and 14 daily life has become a critical focus within the emerging of an aging Society.”

 

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE (???)

The objective is unclear and does not match the results presented in the survey.

“This study proposes Hospital-oriented Devel-17 opment (HOD), which refers to the hospital accessibility within a 15-minute travel radius 18 and the development intensity of surrounding urban Spaces.”

 

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY (???)

It doesn’t present a research methodology description but rather framework details developed in the research.

 

RESEARCH RESULTS(???)

It does not present the results clearly but rather describes the proposed framework.

 

RESEARCH CONCLUSION(???)

“In short, this study provides operational guidance for hospital-adjacent spaces’ planning and supports urban revitalization by enhancing healthcare environments from a human-centered perspective.”

 

 

Initial general comments:

The manuscript presents a scientific structure with the following Sections and Subsections:

Introduction – yes, partially

Literature Review - no

Research Methodology – yes, partially

Analysis – yes

Results - yes

Conclusion – yes, partially

Respective References – yes

 

The manuscript preliminary analysis:

The article presents theoretical research through the creation of a framework based on the Hospital Oriented Development (HOD) approach.

The absence of a literature review compromises understanding of the proposed framework.

The Research Methodology (or Materials and Methods) section lacks details on the methods themselves but provides a thorough description of the framework creation process.

The analysis and results take a quantitative approach through case studies and indicators, using statistical tools for correlation and data comparison.

The Conclusion section is insufficient, as it does not present a review of the article as a whole and does not generate an academic conclusion based on the research findings.

 

Detailed Comments on Manuscript Sections

Title: Urban Form as a Driver for Quantitative Measurements of 2 HOD Performance: A Methodological Innovation via Multi-3 Sourced Urban Data

- Partially inconsistent

The title is too broad, presenting a series of information that compromises the objectivity of the proposed research, and ends up taking the focus away from the results presented by the research.

Suggestion:

- Revise the title based on the research objective (“The main objective of this study is to explore the paradigm for the collaborative development of hospital-adjacent space, referred to as Hospital-Oriented Development  (HOD)”), keywords, and, most importantly, the

results presented.

 

Abstract:

- unsatisfactory from a scientific methodological point of view

Observations:

-The lack of clarity in the context makes it impossible to fully understand the research.

-The objective is unclear and does not match the results presented in the survey.

-It doesn’t present a research methodology description but rather framework details developed in the research.

-It does not present the results clearly but rather describes the proposed framework.

- Brief conclusion on research use in the urban environment

Suggestion:

- Review the contextualization;

- Review the research methodology;

- Review the presentation of the research results;

 

keywords:

- incoherent keywords

“urban form; hospital-oriented development (HOD); evaluating methods; quantitative measurements; multi-sourced urban data”

The keywords are very broad and focus on the methods used in the research rather than necessarily on the results.

Suggestion:

- Review the Keywords according the objective (Section 3.1 - “The main objective of this study is to explore the paradigm for the collaborative development of hospital-adjacent space, referred to as Hospital-Oriented Development  (HOD) ”)

 

Introduction:

- unsatisfactory from a scientific methodological point of view:

Observations:

The manuscript's contextualization is disconnected from the keywords;

- It doesn’t clearly present the research objective (At the section 3.1  Appear the objective “The main objective of this study is to explore the paradigm for the collaborative development of hospital-adjacent space, referred to as Hospital-Oriented Development  (HOD). ”

- Doesn’t present a research question

- Doesn’t present research methodology;

- The research justification is unclear;

Suggestions:

- Align the contextualization with the keywords;

- Explicitly a research question;

- Explicitly formalize the research objective;

- Explicitly the research methodology;

- Concatenate (relate) the research justifications according to the manuscript's keywords.

 

Literature Review:

- unstructured

Main observation

The article presents int the section 2 “Related works” some related research, maybe this section could be included in the Literature review, but this isn’t the essential literature review concept.

To remember: Literature Review demands/requires: concepts, descriptions, types, classifications, and approaches (without it: no is Literature Review)

Suggestion:

To think about: as a reviewer, I am aware that this Journal does not require (mandatory) a Literature Review Section. However, at least the CITATIONS and REFERENCES in the Introduction Section must be appropriate from the science point of view regarding the researched topics (including research objective, title and keywords), the status of the Authors used as references, and in accordance with this Journal, which is a Q1 Scimago. With respect to this issue, I strongly make these suggestions:

To remember: Literature Review demands/requires: concepts, descriptions, types, classifications, and approaches (without it: no is Literature Review)

 

Materials and Methods:

- unsatisfactory from a scientific methodological point of view):

-Doesn’t present the research methodology used

-Absence the research methods and techniques.

-Presents a framework structure (constructs, subconstructs, and variables/indicators);

-Presents a detailed description of the proposed framework and how it works;

-Presents a detailed description of the variables/indicators;

-Detailed description of the selected ‘case hospitals’ (reasons for choosing them);

Suggestion:

- lack of reiterate Research Method;

- lack of reiterate Research Techniques;

- lack of reiterate Research Phases;

- lack of reiterate Research Scope (what is the Research Coverage);

- lack of reiterate Observation Unit (documents or projects or websites or interviews or ...);

- lack of reiterate Research Sample characterization (research location);

- lack of reiterate “methodological procedures” and/or Research Protocol (or research criteria), and respective research variables;

- lack of reiterate Research Period (time used for research);

Final suggestion: reorganize and "name the parts or subsections" of the Research Methodology

 

Development and/or Research Results and/or Discussions:

- satisfactory / sufficient / enough

Sections 4 e 5 are the most relevant and robust parts of the manuscript, and I congratulate the authors.

Highlighting the following points:

- Analysis methodology;

- Multiple cases use to compare findings (Table 3);

- Statistical tools (Pearson correlation);

- Indicators confidence interval analysis;

- HDO prototype in Chinese context (Figure 9) as research result;

- Contextualized analysis;

- Results categorization;

- Research applicability demonstration 

- Section 5.3 “Limitation and future steps” is at wrong place, this must be present at conclusion.

Suggestion:

Move “Limitation and future steps” to the conclusion.

 

Conclusion:

- unsatisfactory from a scientific methodological point of view:

Observations:

- Does not present a review of the contextualization; research problem; problem question;

- Does not position the achievement of the research objective (This appear at section 3.1 “The main objective of this study is to explore the paradigm for the collaborative development of hospital-adjacent space, referred to as Hospital-Oriented Development  (HOD)”.);

- Does not present the limitations of the research;

- Could present future research related to the research carried out (appears in the analysis and results section).

Suggestions to consider:

- Lack of reiteration of "contextualization with Section 1. Introduction";

- Failed to reiterate "rescue or closing with research objectives";

- Lack of reiteration of scientific contributions;

- Lack of reiteration of the research limitations (scientific limitations);

- Could include future works or additions to be explored;

Final suggestion: Section Conclusion should be rewritten with a scientific connotation, including the connection with Section 1. Introduction.

 

References:

Despite the number of References, some are outdated and unrelated to the research objective and keywords.

Suggestion: review.

 

 

ENGLISH

It is always possible to improve with a native review.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is always possible to improve with a native review.

Author Response

Honorable Reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your insightful comments have been valuable in helping us improve the quality of our work. 
Following your guidance, we have undertaken a comprehensive revision and please see the attachment for the point-by-point responses and revisions.
Besides, all revisions in the revised manuscript have been marked in yellow for your convenience.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors presented a methodological framework to quantitatively evaluate the spatial performance of hospital-oriented development, based on 12 specific indicators in three categories. Hospitals in Shanghai were taken as case studies using multiple urban datasets including street view images, POI data, road network data, and remote sensing imagery. The weights of indicators are derived through AHP. The paper identifies different levels of HOD, and proposes tailored strategies for improvement. The methodological framework is comprehensive. Several issues can be addressed to improve the paper.

1. The positioning of HOD could be clarified in relation to existing frameworks such as Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) and the 15-minute community life circle. Highlighting its distinctive contribution would make the conceptual innovation more evident.
2. Including materials from Xiaohongshu comments is interesting. But the platform’s user base is relatively young and digitally active, which may introduce bias.
3. The description of the AHP process is insufficient. More information is expected such s the number of participated experts, the way to maintain consistency, and alternative weighting methods.
4. The validation using Huashan Hospital branch is useful but limited. Stronger validation through testing the method in different contexts (e.g., other cities or smaller hospitals) would enhance the robustness of the findings.
5. The readability of several figures (e.g., Figures 5,8,9,10) can be improved, such as font size, overall resolution, legend.

Author Response

Honorable Reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your insightful comments have been valuable in helping us improve the quality of our work. 
Following your guidance, we have undertaken a comprehensive revision and please see the attachment for the point-by-point responses and revisions.
Besides, all revisions in the revised manuscript have been marked in yellow for your convenience.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All changes and implementations were responded to and therefore sufficient.
The authors clearly indicated their modifications in yellow, and responded one by one (in red): well organized.