SynthesisHERD2024
A Systematic Review of Research Gaps in the Built Environment of Inpatient Healthcare Settings.
Synthesis in HERD, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Health care worker-reported barriers and potential facilitators of acute lower respiratory infection care deliver for children at Mchinji District Hospital in Malawi.IJID regions · 2026Article
- Experiences and perceptions of physical healthcare among adult autistic patients: A scoping review.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study utilized the evidence-gap map method and critically examined the scope, methodologies, and focus of the studies that investigated the influence of the built environment on inpatient healthcare settings over a decade (2010-2021).
methodsWe conducted a systematic review per the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines and surveyed 406 articles, primarily from North America and Europe.
resultsOur findings revealed a dominant focus on architectural features (73%), such as room design and ward layout. Comparatively, there was less emphasis on interior-, ambient-, social-, and nature-related features. Most previous studies explored multiple environmental features, which indicated the intricacy of this field. Research outcomes were diverse, with person-centered care (PCC) being the most frequently investigated, followed by safe care, emotional well-being, activity, and behavior. Furthermore, research methods varied considerably based on the study's outcomes and features. Clinical outcomes and safe care favored quantitative methods, activity and behavior favored mixed methods, and PCC favored qualitative research.
conclusionThis review provides an in-depth overview of the existing studies on healthcare design research and sheds light on the current trends and methodological choices. The insights garnered can guide future research, policy-making, and the development of healthcare facilities.
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.