Are We Speaking the Same Language? Terminology Consistency in EBD.
architectural variables
dementia-friendly design
evidence-based design
frequency analysis
health and care outcomes
standardized terminology
statistical tests
terminology analysis
Journal
HERD
ISSN: 2167-5112
Titre abrégé: HERD
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101537529
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Jan 2024
24 Jan 2024
Historique:
medline:
24
1
2024
pubmed:
24
1
2024
entrez:
24
1
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The aim of this study is to analyze the consistency, variability, and potential standardization of terminology used to describe architectural variables (AVs) and health outcomes in evidence-based design (EBD) studies. In EBD research, consistent terminology is crucial for studying the effects of AVs on health outcomes. However, there is a possibility that diverse terms have been used by researchers, which could lead to potential confusion and inconsistencies. Three recent large systematic reviews were used as a source of publications, and 105 were extracted. The analysis aimed to extract a list of the terms used to refer to the unique concepts of AVs and health outcomes, with a specific focus on people with dementia. Each term's frequency was calculated, and statistical tests, including the χ The study identified representative terms for AVs and health outcomes, revealing the variability in terminology usage within EBD field for dementia-friendly design. The comparative analysis of the identified terms highlighted patterns of frequency and distribution, shedding light on potential areas for standardization. The findings emphasize the need for standardized terminologies in EBD to improve communication, collaboration, and knowledge synthesis. Standardization of terminology can facilitate research comparability, enhance the generalizability of findings by creating a common language across studies and practitioners, and support the development of EBD guidelines. The study contributes to the ongoing discourse on standardizing terminologies in the field and provides insights into strategies for achieving consensus among researchers, practitioners, and stakeholders in health environmental research.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
UNASSIGNED
The aim of this study is to analyze the consistency, variability, and potential standardization of terminology used to describe architectural variables (AVs) and health outcomes in evidence-based design (EBD) studies.
BACKGROUND
UNASSIGNED
In EBD research, consistent terminology is crucial for studying the effects of AVs on health outcomes. However, there is a possibility that diverse terms have been used by researchers, which could lead to potential confusion and inconsistencies.
METHODS
UNASSIGNED
Three recent large systematic reviews were used as a source of publications, and 105 were extracted. The analysis aimed to extract a list of the terms used to refer to the unique concepts of AVs and health outcomes, with a specific focus on people with dementia. Each term's frequency was calculated, and statistical tests, including the χ
RESULTS
UNASSIGNED
The study identified representative terms for AVs and health outcomes, revealing the variability in terminology usage within EBD field for dementia-friendly design. The comparative analysis of the identified terms highlighted patterns of frequency and distribution, shedding light on potential areas for standardization.
CONCLUSIONS
UNASSIGNED
The findings emphasize the need for standardized terminologies in EBD to improve communication, collaboration, and knowledge synthesis. Standardization of terminology can facilitate research comparability, enhance the generalizability of findings by creating a common language across studies and practitioners, and support the development of EBD guidelines. The study contributes to the ongoing discourse on standardizing terminologies in the field and provides insights into strategies for achieving consensus among researchers, practitioners, and stakeholders in health environmental research.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38264993
doi: 10.1177/19375867231225395
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
19375867231225395Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.