du.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • chicago-author-date
  • chicago-note-bibliography
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Application of Theory in Studies of Healthcare Built Environment Research
Dalarna University, School of Education, Health and Social Studies, Caring Science/Nursing.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3356-7583
Dalarna University, School of Education, Health and Social Studies, Caring Science/Nursing. Chalmers University of Technology; Karolinska Institute.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7044-8896
2020 (English)In: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, ISSN 1937-5867, E-ISSN 2167-5112, article id 1937586719901108Article in journal (Refereed) Epub ahead of print
Abstract [en]

We aimed to examine the nature and extent of theory application in studies of built environment attributes and impact on adults in healthcare facilities. Many varied theories are described when providing the rationale for research into built environments in healthcare. Uncertainty exists around the right theory to frame a research question, alignment with measurement tools, and whether healthcare setting makes a difference. This poses challenges to researchers seeking to build the evidence base for built environment design that benefits patients and staff. Our multidisciplinary review team scoped the literature to determine how theories are used to inform research investigating the impact of the built environment of healthcare on adults. When researchers recorded theory at development of the study question, in data collection, and in data analysis/interpretation, we called this explicitly theory-based application. Synthesis occurred using a narrative approach. Overall, we found 17 diverse theories named in studies. Explicitly theory-based use occurred with eight theories, comprising 47% of all theories used. Five theories were named more frequently in studies out of all theories identified. In 20% of studies, theory was not used explicitly during the research inquiry. We argue that researchers must continue to strive toward explicit use of theories, similar to development of other health interventions that employ multifactorial components.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2020. article id 1937586719901108
Keywords [en]
built environment, health facilities, psychosocial health, research-informed design, review, theories
National Category
Health Sciences
Research subject
Health and Welfare
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:du-31879DOI: 10.1177/1937586719901108ISI: 000510129900001PubMedID: 31994904Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85078754572OAI: oai:DiVA.org:du-31879DiVA, id: diva2:1393099
Available from: 2020-02-14 Created: 2020-02-14 Last updated: 2020-03-18Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records BETA

Nordin, SusannaElf, Marie

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Nordin, SusannaElf, Marie
By organisation
Caring Science/Nursing
In the same journal
Health Environments Research & Design Journal
Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 30 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • chicago-author-date
  • chicago-note-bibliography
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf