Are We Speaking the Same Language? Terminology Consistency in EBD.

OBJECTIVE

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

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

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 and the post hoc test, were employed to compare their distributions.

RESULTS

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

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.