4.3 Review

Lighting in the Home and Health: A Systematic Review

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18020609

Keywords

light; illumination; housing; residential; home; health

Funding

  1. MRC Centre for Environment and Health - Medical Research Council [MR/S019669/1]
  2. Pathways to Equitable Healthy Cities grant from theWellcome Trust [209376/Z/17/Z]
  3. MRC [MR/S019669/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Poor housing, especially poor lighting, can have a significant impact on health. However, the current evidence base is limited and more research is needed to understand the specific health outcomes related to home lighting practices.
Poor housing is an important determinant of poor health. One key aspect of housing quality is lighting. Light is important for visual performance and safety, and also plays a vital role in regulating human physiological functions. This review aims to synthesise existing evidence on the relationship between lighting in the home and health and recommends areas for future research. Three databases were searched for relevant literature using pre-defined inclusion criteria. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Extracted data were qualitatively synthesised according to type of lighting (natural light, artificial light and light at night) and stratified by broad health domains (physical, mental and sleep health). Of the 4043 records retrieved, 28 studies met the inclusion criteria. There was considerable heterogeneity in light exposure metrics used and specific health outcome assessed by the studies. Lighting in the home can negatively affect health but the current evidence base is limited to a small number of studies in different domains of light and health. Further research surrounding specific health outcomes is required to better inform housing quality assessments and lighting practises in the home.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available