| ¼ö·Ï»çÇ× |
Çѱ¹ÀǷẹÁö°ÇÃàÇÐȸÁö ¡ºÀǷᡤº¹Áö °ÇÃà¡» , Vol.28 No.4(Åë±Ç 89È£)(2022-12) |
| ÁÖÁ¦¾î |
±Ù°Å±â¹Ý¼³°è; ±Ù°Å±â¹Ý½Ç¹«; ±Ù°ÅÀÇ À§°è ; Evidence-based Design; Evidenced-based Practice; the Hierarchy of Evidence |
| ¿ä¾à2 |
Purpose: To prove the credibility of EBD, it is necessary to define concepts regarding the nature of credible knowledge and the hierarchy of evidence. In addition, the relationship between EBD and EBP needs to be addressed through a practical viewpoint. Methods: The systematic review is applied to define the nature of knowledge and the characteristics of research papers in architectural EBD while analyzing the field of study, knowledge focus and types of keywords of the first author. Results: As a whole, the types of research focus evaluated using the most frequent keywords include function(40.86%), specialized knowledge(30.52%), professional practice(21.37%), and health(5.78%). Empirical research(83.72%) is more likely to be found than theoretical research(13.95%). The EBD research papers ranked as top-tier are only 7(2.03%) among a total of 344, while the research papers ranked in the third to fourth tiers are 276(80.23%). Implications: There is a deficiency of reliable 1-2 tier research papers. From a practical viewpoint, it would be realistic to recommend that healthcare architects appropriately evaluate the quality of EBD research and apply it in practice, rather than to conduct EBD research themselves. This systematic review illustrates the nature of EBD research. |