| Popis: |
Background Current built health system reconfiguration evidence is insufficient to support policy decisions on the best settings for healthcare provision. As a result, the “built health system” (the buildings, physical environments, engineering infrastructure and the building standards, guidance and evidence that support them) remain misunderstood. We explore several literature review types that have supported built health system policy, and the methodological, interdisciplinary and theoretical challenges of conducting high-impacting systematised reviews. Then establish how they might provide a robust basis for prioritising the reconfiguration of significant capital investments. Methods/design Five literature reviews undertaken to inform built health system reconfiguration policy are used as an empirical basis to help establish clearer scientific grounds for built health system infrastructure policy. The methods, benefits and empirical limitations of systematic, scoping, narrative, realistic and rapid reviews are compared. Discussion The methodological, interdisciplinary and theoretical shortcomings of existing evidence on built health system reconfiguration need to be addressed. This paper conceptualises this evidence and offers a new evidence co-production framework. |
Full text from SpringerLink