Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,421

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Review of the Research Literature on Evidence-Based Healthcare Design

Ulrich, Roger S., Zimring, Craig, Zhu, Xuemei, DuBose, Jennifer, Seo, Hyun-Bo, Choi, Young-Seon, Quan, Xiaobo, Joseph, Anjali·2008·HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal

Abstract

Objective: This report surveys and evaluates the scientific research on evidence-based healthcare design and extracts its implications for designing better and safer hospitals. Background: It builds on a literature review conducted by researchers in 2004. Methods: Research teams conducted a new and more exhaustive search for rigorous empirical studies that link the design of hospital physical environments with healthcare outcomes. The review followed a two-step process, including an extensive search for existing literature and a screening of each identified study for the relevance and quality of evidence. Results: This review found a growing body of rigorous studies to guide healthcare design, especially with respect to reducing the frequency of hospital-acquired infections. Results are organized according to three general types of outcomes: patient safety, other patient outcomes, and staff outcomes. The findings further support the importance of improving outcomes for a range of design characteristics or interventions, including single-bed rooms rather than multibed rooms, effective ventilation systems, a good acoustic environment, nature distractions and daylight, appropriate lighting, better ergonomic design, acuity-adaptable rooms, and improved floor layouts and work settings. Directions for future research are also identified. Conclusions: The state of knowledge of evidence-based healthcare design has grown rapidly in recent years. The evidence indicates that well-designed physical settings play an important role in making hospitals safer and more healing for patients, and better places for staff to work.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/193758670800100306

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 16 references

Cited by

See all 1,421

Metadata

Authors
Ulrich, R. S., Zimring, C., Zhu, X., DuBose, J., Seo, H.-B., Choi, Y.-S., Quan, X., & Joseph, A.
Venue
HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal
Published
2008-04
Volume
1
Issue
3
Pages
61-125
ISSN
  • 1937-5867 (ISSN-L)
  • 2167-5112
OpenAlex
W2131275769
Cited by
1,421
References
16
FWCI
115.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Review of the Research Literature on Evidence-Based Healthcare Design. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/193758670800100306
The paper
Ulrich, R. S., Zimring, C., Zhu, X., DuBose, J., Seo, H.-B., Choi, Y.-S., Quan, X., & Joseph, A. (2008). A Review of the Research Literature on Evidence-Based Healthcare Design. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/193758670800100306

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.