Objective: This overview is intended to provide the process framework for built environment researchers to use the Delphi method. The article outlines the methodological criteria originally established for the Delphi method, as well as commonly accepted modifications, to advance guidance for evidence-based built environment considerations. Background: Increasingly used in healthcare research, the Delphi method is a process for gaining consensus through controlled feedback from a panel—a group made up of experts or individuals knowledgeable on the subject. The method is often used where there is limited or conflicting evidence, where participants may be geographically dispersed, and where anonymity is desired to control for dominant individuals. The Delphi method consists of panel selection, development of content surveys, and iterative stages of anonymous responses to gain consensus. Panelists receive feedback after each round in the form of a statistical representation of the overall group’s response. The goal of multiple iterations in the Delphi method is to reduce the range of responses and gain expert consensus, which is often seen as more credible than conjecture or individual opinion. Conclusion: With a geographic diversity of healthcare design expertise, and with so many aspects of healthcare design lacking a robust body of supporting empirical research, the Delphi method is well-suited to developing evidence-based design recommendations and considerations for healthcare built environments.

SPRs seem to result in more advantages than disadvantages. However, healthcare is a complex adaptive system, and decisions for 100% SPRs should be reviewed alongside related issues, such as necessary workflow modifications, unit configuration and other room layout decisions, patient populations, staffing models, and inherent trade-offs (e.g., the advantages of privacy compared to disadvantage of isolation).

No abstract

No abstract

Background and Aims Evaluating evidence for the built environment is not easy, and many professionals struggle with the challenge of identifying the best available research. This article outlines the current state of science for evaluating evidence in healthcare design, drawing on previous discussion articles in this journal and introducing a Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), which can be used by professional designers to evaluate research evidence for healthcare design. Two case studies are provided to illustrate the use of the MMAT with an evidence levels algorithm. Critical Appraisal Tools Academic texts often include evaluation tools to assist students in taking a critical stance when reading research papers. For example, Reading Research (Davies & Logan, 2012) contains worksheets that can be used to evaluate systematic reviews, qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research. Several HERD articles and editorials have discussed the importance of evaluating the research used in evidence-based design (EBD) (Hamilton, 2011; Marquardt & Motzek,