↓ Skip to main content

Workplace lighting for improving alertness and mood in daytime workers

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
24 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Workplace lighting for improving alertness and mood in daytime workers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012243.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniela V Pachito, Alan L Eckeli, Ahmed S Desouky, Mark A Corbett, Timo Partonen, Shantha MW Rajaratnam, Rachel Riera

Abstract

Exposure to light plays a crucial role in biological processes, influencing mood and alertness. Daytime workers may be exposed to insufficient or inappropriate light during daytime, leading to mood disturbances and decreases in levels of alertness. To assess the effectiveness and safety of lighting interventions to improve alertness and mood in daytime workers. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, seven other databases; ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization trials portal up to January 2018. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and non-randomised controlled before-after trials (CBAs) that employed a cross-over or parallel-group design, focusing on any type of lighting interventions applied for daytime workers. Two review authors independently screened references in two stages, extracted outcome data and assessed risk of bias. We used standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to pool data from different questionnaires and scales assessing the same outcome across different studies. We combined clinically homogeneous studies in a meta-analysis. We used the GRADE system to rate quality of evidence. The search yielded 2844 references. After screening titles and abstracts, we considered 34 full text articles for inclusion. We scrutinised reports against the eligibility criteria, resulting in the inclusion of five studies (three RCTs and two CBAs) with 282 participants altogether. These studies evaluated four types of comparisons: cool-white light, technically known as high correlated colour temperature (CCT) light versus standard illumination; different proportions of indirect and direct light; individually applied blue-enriched light versus no treatment; and individually applied morning bright light versus afternoon bright light for subsyndromal seasonal affective disorder.We found no studies comparing one level of illuminance versus another.We found two CBA studies (163 participants) comparing high CCT light with standard illumination. By pooling their results via meta-analysis we found that high CCT light may improve alertness (SMD -0.69, 95% CI -1.28 to -0.10; Columbia Jet Lag Scale and the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale) when compared to standard illumination. In one of the two CBA studies with 94 participants there was no difference in positive mood (mean difference (MD) 2.08, 95% CI -0.1 to 4.26) or negative mood (MD -0.45, 95% CI -1.84 to 0.94) assessed using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) scale. High CCT light may have fewer adverse events than standard lighting (one CBA; 94 participants). Both studies were sponsored by the industry. We graded the quality of evidence as very low.We found no studies comparing light of a particular illuminance and light spectrum or CCT versus another combination of illuminance and light spectrum or CCT.We found no studies comparing daylight versus artificial light.We found one RCT (64 participants) comparing the effects of different proportions of direct and indirect light: 100% direct lighting, 70% direct lighting plus 30% indirect lighting, 30% direct lighting plus 70% indirect lighting and 100% indirect lighting. There was no substantial difference in mood, as assessed by the Beck Depression Inventory, or in adverse events, such as ocular, reading or concentration problems, in the short or medium term. We graded the quality of evidence as low.We found two RCTs comparing individually administered light versus no treatment. According to one RCT with 25 participants, blue-enriched light individually applied for 30 minutes a day may enhance alertness (MD -3.30, 95% CI -6.28 to -0.32; Epworth Sleepiness Scale) and may improve mood (MD -4.8, 95% CI -9.46 to -0.14; Beck Depression Inventory). We graded the quality of evidence as very low. One RCT with 30 participants compared individually applied morning bright light versus afternoon bright light for subsyndromal seasonal affective disorder. There was no substantial difference in alertness levels (MD 7.00, 95% CI -10.18 to 24.18), seasonal affective disorder symptoms (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.81, 3.20; number of participants presenting with a decrease of at least 50% in SIGH-SAD scores) or frequency of adverse events (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.07). Among all participants, 57% had a reduction of at least 50% in their SIGH-SAD score. We graded the quality of evidence as low.Publication bias could not be assessed for any of these comparisons. There is very low-quality evidence based on two CBA studies that high CCT light may improve alertness, but not mood, in daytime workers. There is very low-quality evidence based on one CBA study that high CCT light may also cause less irritability, eye discomfort and headache than standard illumination. There is low-quality evidence based on one RCT that different proportions of direct and indirect light in the workplace do not affect alertness or mood. There is very low-quality evidence based on one RCT that individually applied blue-enriched light improves both alertness and mood. There is low-quality evidence based on one RCT that individually administered bright light during the afternoon is as effective as morning exposure for improving alertness and mood in subsyndromal seasonal affective disorder.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 118 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 22%
Researcher 20 17%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Unspecified 4 3%
Other 22 19%
Unknown 22 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 20%
Psychology 14 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 9%
Engineering 6 5%
Unspecified 4 3%
Other 30 25%
Unknown 29 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 23 October 2018.
All research outputs
#916,662
of 14,229,005 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,766
of 10,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,861
of 274,654 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#77
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,229,005 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,901 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
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 274,654 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 212 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.