The relationship between buildings and health: a systematic review

Ige, Janet; Pilkington, Paul; Orme, Judy; Williams, Ben; Prestwood, Emily; Black, Daniel; Carmichael, Laurence; Scally, Gabriel

doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdy138

Cited by 78 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…e high number of primary studies in the last 10 years reflects the increasing interest by the researchers and public health professionals in this area; however, a major limitation of this evidence is more than 50% of the included studies were cross-sectional; in these studies, the temporal relationship between exposure and outcome cannot be established [51]; therefore, it is not possible to conclude the causality of the built environment on mental health [47]. Hence, as mentioned in some SRs [48,49,52], there is a need for more high-quality research, especially controlled longitudinal/time-series analyses.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Drawbacks in the critical items included: the SRs did not state prior design or registered protocol [15, 43, 45-48, 51, 52], did not include list of excluded studies with reasons [15, 43-48, 51, 52], and did not address the risk of bias in the individual studies [15, 43-45, 47, 52]. Drawbacks in the noncritical items included: the authors did not report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the SRs [15,[43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52], and the SRs did not report conflicts of interest [43,47]. e kappa coefficient for the total AMSTAR-2 score showed substantial agreement (0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-0.88).…”

Section: Characteristics and Quality Of The Systematic Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ige et al's review suggests that affordable housing of good quality, with good energy efficiency and adequate ventilation, has the potential to be an important contributor to improved well-being [48]. Friesinger et al's review indicated that well-being was more likely to be linked to community and neighbourhood qualities than to a specific building, while deterioration in the physical quality of the neighbourhood exacerbated mental health problems [43].…”

Section: Mental Health and Well-being Bowler Et Al's Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…e authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper. Gascon 2017 et al [46] Bowler et al [44] Ige et al [48] van den Berg et al [51] Zhang et al [52] Friesinger et al [43] Depression and stress…”

Section: Conflicts Of Interestmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Overview of “Systematic Reviews” of the Built Environment’s Effects on Mental Health

Núñez-González

Delgado‐Ron

Gault

et al. 2020

Journal of Environmental and Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Good mental health is related to mental and psychological well-being, and there is growing interest in the potential role of the built environment on mental health, yet the evidence base underpinning the direct or indirect effects of the built environment is not fully clear. The aim of this overview is to assess the effect of the built environment on mental health-related outcomes. Methods. This study provides an overview of published systematic reviews (SRs) that assess the effect of the built environment on mental health. We reported the overview according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Databases searched until November 2019 included the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, MEDLINE (OVID 1946 to present), LILACS, and PsycINFO. Two authors independently selected reviews, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of included reviews using the Assessing Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2). Results. In total, 357 records were identified from a structured search of five databases combined with the references of the included studies, and eleven SRs were included in the narrative synthesis. Outcomes included mental health and well-being, depression and stress, and psychological distress. According to AMSTAR-2 scores, the quality assessment of the included SRs was categorized as “high” in two SRs and as “critically low” in nine SRs. According to the conclusions of the SRs reported by the authors, only one SR reported a “beneficial” effect on mental health and well-being outcomes. Conclusion. There was insufficient evidence to make firm conclusions on the effects of built environment interventions on mental health outcomes (well-being, depression and stress, and psychological distress). The evidence collected reported high heterogeneity (outcomes and measures) and a moderate- to low-quality assessment among the included SRs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Characteristics and Quality Of The Systematic Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Mental Health and Well-being Bowler Et Al's Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Conflicts Of Interestmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Overview of “Systematic Reviews” of the Built Environment’s Effects on Mental Health

Núñez-González

Delgado‐Ron

Gault

et al. 2020

Journal of Environmental and Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A recent review by Ige et al [16] underlines this connection between buildings and health. Unfortunately, slum dwellers with insufficient living conditions (poor access to tap water and sanitary facilities) are only mentioned indirectly in passing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Slums, Space, and State of Health—A Link between Settlement Morphology and Health Data

Friesen

Dietrich

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Approximately 1 billion slum dwellers worldwide are exposed to increased health risks due to their spatial environment. Recent studies have therefore called for the spatial environment to be introduced as a separate dimension in medical studies. Hence, this study investigates how and on which spatial scale relationships between the settlement morphology and the health status of the inhabitants can be identified. To this end, we summarize the current literature on the identification of slums from a geographical perspective and review the current literature on slums and health of the last five years (376 studies) focusing on the considered scales in the studies. We show that the majority of medical studies are restricted to certain geographical regions. It is desirable that the number of studies be adapted to the number of the respective population. On the basis of these studies, we develop a framework to investigate the relationship between space and health. Finally, we apply our methodology to investigate the relationship between the prevalence of slums and different health metrics using data of the global burden of diseases for different prefectures in Brazil on a subnational level.

show abstract

Local Health: Building Scale

Pineo

2022

Planning, Environment, Cities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relationship between buildings and health: a systematic review

Abstract: This review identified evidence to demonstrate the strong association between certain features of housing and wellbeing such as adequate heating and ventilation. Our findings highlight the need for strengthening of the evidence base in order for meaningful conclusions to be drawn.

Cited by 78 publications

References 46 publications

Overview of “Systematic Reviews” of the Built Environment’s Effects on Mental Health

Overview of “Systematic Reviews” of the Built Environment’s Effects on Mental Health

Slums, Space, and State of Health—A Link between Settlement Morphology and Health Data

Local Health: Building Scale

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About