4.1 Review

Impact of the Design of the Built Environment on People with Dementia: An Evidence-Based Review

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/193758671400800111

关键词

Built environment; elderly; literature review; evidence-based design; outcomes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: In this review the impact of the design of the built environment on people with dementia in long-term care settings is systematically analyzed and summarized. Architects and designers will be provided with credible evidence on which they can confidently base their design decisions. Researchers will be able to determine which environmental aspects have been well investigated and where there are gaps in the current state of the research. BACKGROUND: A great number of studies have established a relationship between the design of the physical environment of long-term care settings and outcomes of people with dementia. However, the methods employed are heterogeneous and the results are often conflicting. Consequently, the process of integrating the best evidence available into architectural designs may be hindered. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted reviewing studies that meet certain inclusion criteria. Using an evidence-based approach, the methodical quality of the studies was rated. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-nine studies were found. They were thematically summarized into four main categories: basic design decisions, environmental attributes, ambience, and environmental information. The effectiveness of the interventions on the behavior, cognition, function, well being, social abilities, orientation, and care outcomes on people with dementia was illustrated by matrices. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this review indicate that, with the exception of cognition, specific design interventions are beneficial to the outcomes of people with dementia. Overall, the field of environmental design for people with dementia is well researched in many aspects and only few gaps in knowledge were identified.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据