↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of non-pharmacological interventions to improve nighttime sleep among residents of long-term care settings

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
151 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
A systematic review of non-pharmacological interventions to improve nighttime sleep among residents of long-term care settings
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12877-018-0794-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth Capezuti, Rana Sagha Zadeh, Kevin Pain, Aleksa Basara, Nancy Ziyan Jiang, Ana C. Krieger

Abstract

Disturbances in sleep and circadian rhythms are common among residents of long-term care facilities. In this systematic review, we aim to identify and evaluate the literature documenting the outcomes associated with non-pharmacological interventions to improve nighttime sleep among long-term care residents. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guided searches of five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) for articles reporting results of experimental or quasi-experimental studies conducted in long-term care settings (nursing homes, assisted-living facilities, or group homes) in which nighttime sleep was subjectively or objectively measured as a primary outcome. We categorized each intervention by its intended use and how it was administered. Of the 54 included studies evaluating the effects of 25 different non-pharmacological interventions, more than half employed a randomized controlled trial design (n = 30); the others used a pre-post design with (n = 11) or without (n = 13) a comparison group. The majority of randomized controlled trials were at low risk for most types of bias, and most other studies met the standard quality criteria. The interventions were categorized as environmental interventions (n = 14), complementary health practices (n = 12), social/physical stimulation (n = 11), clinical care practices (n = 3), or mind-body practices (n = 3). Although there was no clear pattern of positive findings, three interventions had the most promising results: increased daytime light exposure, nighttime use of melatonin, and acupressure. Non-pharmacological interventions have the potential to improve sleep for residents of long-term care facilities. Further research is needed to better standardize such interventions and provide clear implementation guidelines using cost-effective practices.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 151 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 17%
Student > Bachelor 24 16%
Researcher 13 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 6%
Student > Postgraduate 7 5%
Other 22 15%
Unknown 50 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 36 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 27 18%
Social Sciences 8 5%
Sports and Recreations 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 19 13%
Unknown 51 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 18 August 2018.
All research outputs
#14,417,376
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#2,182
of 3,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,268
of 328,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#50
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,261 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 328,114 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.