4.6 Article

Environment in pediatric wards: light, sound, and temperature

期刊

SLEEP MEDICINE
卷 16, 期 9, 页码 1041-1048

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.sleep.2015.03.015

关键词

Hospital environment; Wards; Hospitalization; Children; Sleep quality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mutual relationship between sleep and disease is well known, becoming more relevant whenever the disease leads to hospitalization. We intend to describe patterns of environmental factors of some pediatric wards, and to verify if these are in line with those recommended. As a secondary aim, we characterize sleep quality during hospitalization. Methods: Five pediatric wards of a tertiary-level hospital were included. Light, sound, and temperature were measured and assessed through descriptive statistics. The following recommended values were considered: maximum light 100 Lux, maximum sound 45 dB, and optimal temperature 20-24 degrees C. A questionnaire was prepared to assess children's sleep, and it was completed by a caregiver. Results: Light values were within the desirable limits for 86% of evaluated time. In all wards, the intensity of sound was much higher than desirable, being above 45 dB during 85% of evaluated time. The temperature was above 24 degrees C during 78% of total time. Based on 34 answered questionnaires (out of 50 distributed), almost half of the respondents believe that sleep quality and restlessness are worse at the hospital. Most children slept for a longer time at home. Eighteen children awoke more times at the hospital, and those awakenings were mostly attributed to noise. Conclusions: The sound and temperature were higher than recommended. The different values between these wards may be due to different levels of care, but this shows that there are no standard rules on this matter. A worse quality and shorter duration of sleep at hospital were reported. Comprehensive studies are necessary to evaluate the impact of environmental factors on disease recovery. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据