Evidence-based design: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
m Disambiguating links to Labour Party (link changed to Labour Party (UK)) using DisamAssist.
Citation bot (talk | contribs)
Added work. Removed parameters. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Headbomb | Linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia/Sandbox | #UCB_webform_linked 207/751
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 45:
A comprehensive review of the literature was undertaken in 2005 for the Design Council.<ref>Higgins, S., Hall, E., Wall, K., Woolner, P., and McCaughey, C. (2005) The Impact of School Environments: a literature review, produced for the Design Council by the University of Newcastle.</ref> It concluded that there was evidence for the effect of basic physical variables (air quality, temperature, noise) on learning but that once minimum standards were achieved, further improvements were less significant. The reviewers found forceful opinions on the effects of lighting and colour but that the supporting evidence was conflicting. It was difficult to draw generalizable conclusions about other physical characteristics, and the interactions between different elements was as important as single elements.
Other literature reviews of the education sector include two by [[PwC|Price Waterhouse Coopers]] <ref>
Price Waterhouse Coopers, (2001) Building Performance: an empirical assessment of the relationship between schools capital investment and pupil performance, Research Report 242, Department for Education and Employment, London.</ref><ref>PricewaterhouseCoopers, (2003) Building better performance: an empirical assessment of the learning and other impacts of schools capital investment, Research Report No 407, Department for Education and Skills, London.</ref> and one by researchers at the [[University of Salford]].<ref>Barrett, P and Zhang, Y. Optimal Learning Spaces: Design Implications for Primary Schools, Salford Centre for Research and Innovation in the built and human environment, 2009.</ref>
Line 80:
 
== {{anchor|Current state|Research centers|Accreditation and certification}}Research and accreditation==
As EBD is supported by research, many healthcare organizations are adopting its principles with the guidance of evidence-based designers. The Center for Health Design developed the Pebble Project,<ref>{{Cite web | url=https://www.healthdesign.org/research-services/pebble-project | title=Becoming a Pebble Partner | publisher=The Center for Health Design| date=20 July 2010| author1=Apuccinelli | work=The Center for Health Design }}</ref> a joint research effort by CHD and selected healthcare providers on the effect of building environments on patients and staff. ''Health Environment Research & Design'' journal and the Health Care Advisory Board<ref>{{Cite web | url=https://www.advisory.com/research/health-care-advisory-board | title=Health Care Advisory Board}}</ref> are additional sources of information and database on EBD.
 
The Evidence Based Design Accreditation and Certification (EDAC) program was introduced in 2009 by The Center for Health Design to provide internationally recognized certification and promote the use of EBD in healthcare building projects, making EBD an accepted and credible approach to improving healthcare outcomes.<ref name=":5" /> EDAC identifies those experienced in EBD and teaches about the research process: identifying, hypothesizing, implementing, gathering and reporting data associated with a healthcare project.