| Title |
Shift work and quality of sleep: effect of working in designed dynamic light
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00420-015-1051-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hanne Irene Jensen, Jakob Markvart, René Holst, Tina Damgaard Thomsen, Jette West Larsen, Dorthe Maria Eg, Lisa Seest Nielsen |
| Abstract |
To examine the effect of designed dynamic light on staff's quality of sleep with regard to sleep efficiency, level of melatonin in saliva, and subjective perceptions of quality of sleep. An intervention group working in designed dynamic light was compared with a control group working in ordinary institutional light at two comparable intensive care units (ICUs). The study included examining (1) melatonin profiles obtained from saliva samples, (2) quality of sleep in terms of sleep efficiency, number of awakenings and subjective assessment of sleep through the use of sleep monitors and sleep diaries, and (3) subjective perceptions of well-being, health, and sleep quality using a questionnaire. Light conditions were measured at both locations. A total of 113 nurses (88 %) participated. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding personal characteristics, and no significant differences in total sleep efficiency or melatonin level were found. The intervention group felt more rested (OR 2.03, p = 0.003) and assessed their condition on awakening as better than the control group (OR 2.35, p = 0.001). Intervention-ICU nurses received far more light both during day and evening shifts compared to the control-ICU. The study found no significant differences in monitored sleep efficiency and melatonin level. Nurses from the intervention-ICU subjectively assessed their sleep as more effective than participants from the control-ICU. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 144 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 13% |
| Researcher | 18 | 12% |
| Other | 11 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 27 | 18% |
| Unknown | 41 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 10% |
| Psychology | 11 | 7% |
| Engineering | 11 | 7% |
| Design | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 34 | 23% |
| Unknown | 48 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 May 2016.
All research outputs
#16,049,105
of 23,815,455 outputs
Outputs from International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health
#1,721
of 1,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,091
of 266,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health
#10
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,815,455 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,988 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,578 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.