Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36159251›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in public health2022

Study on value-based design of healthcare facilities: Based on review of the literature in the USA and Japan.

Ying Zhou, Yaonan Sun, Yi Xu, Hao Yuan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. The VBHC big picture: an umbrella review.BMC health services research · 2025
    Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ying ZhouDepartment of Architecture, School of Architecture, Southeast University, Nanjing, China.
Yaonan SunDepartment of Civil Engineering, School of Science, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, China.
Yi XuDepartment of Architecture, School of Architecture, Southeast University, Nanjing, China.
Hao YuanDepartment of Architecture, School of Architecture, Southeast University, Nanjing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With limited medical resources, it is of great significance for countries all over the world to explore architectural design methods to enhance the value of medical facilities. Therefore, it is very necessary to carry out an extensive international comparison. In order to grasp the research trend of healthcare facilities in the world, this paper conducts co-occurrence analysis, cluster analysis, and trend analysis of the keywords of 334 English articles and 153 Japanese articles related to healthcare facilities published in important academic journals in the USA and Japan in the past 15 years. We not only compare the similarities and differences in healthcare facility research between the USA and Japan, but also explore the reasons for these differences. It is found that by introducing three kinds of value variables, such as time, space, and behavior, we can not only well explain the difference in the solution of healthcare facilities in the USA and Japan to reduce medical costs but also provide new ideas for architectural design to enhance the value of hospitals. Based on the above analysis, a conceptual framework of value-based design of healthcare facilities that combines the advantages of the USA and Japan is proposed in this paper.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHospitalsCosts and Cost AnalysisJapanUnited Statesarchitectural planningevidence-based designhealthcare facilityJapanUSAvalue-based design

Identifiers

PMID36159251
PMCPMC9500362

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.