Measuring Sleep in the Intensive Care Unit: A Critical Appraisal of the Use of Subjective Methods
Measuring Sleep in the Intensive Care Unit: A Critical Appraisal of the Use of Subjective Methods
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/0885066617712197
复制
发表时间：
2019-09-01
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
Darbyshire, Julie L.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jeffs, Emma L.;Darbyshire, Julie L.
目标：整理和评估重症监护病房 (ICU) 中评估睡眠的主观测量方法的使用情况。设计：对已发表文献的系统搜索和批判性评论。数据来源：使用关键词“睡眠”、“重症监护”、“重症监护”和“睡眠障碍”的组合对 Medline、Scopus 以及护理和联合健康文献累积索引进行搜索，并通过手动搜索相关主题的最新系统评论进行补充。研究资格标准：论文仅限于过去 10 年发表的针对成年人口的非灰色英语研究。结果测量：主要结果是报告睡眠测量的定量研究的数量和分类、每种数据收集方法的参与者数量以及评估 ICU 睡眠测量常用调查工具使用情况的相关材料的综合。结果：38 篇论文报告了有关睡眠的定量实证数据收集，其中 17 篇论文使用了患者或护士对睡眠进行主观评估的主要方法。确定了 13 种主观睡眠评估方法。其中许多工具缺乏有效性和可靠性测试。结论：鉴于多导睡眠图或其他睡眠测量方法存在实际障碍，使用问卷评估睡眠的研究很常见。方法论上合理的工具开发和测试方法对于收集有意义的数据至关重要，但在许多情况下缺乏这种可靠的方法。在 ICU 中主观测量睡眠的进一步研究应使用理查兹坎贝尔睡眠问卷，研究人员应在描述方法时保持透明度的承诺。
Objectives: To collate and appraise the use of subjective measures to assess sleep in the intensive care unit (ICU). Design: A systematic search and critical review of the published literature. Data Sources: Medline, Scopus, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were searched using combinations of the key words "Sleep," "Critical Care," "Intensive Care," and "Sleep Disorders," and this was complemented by hand searching the most recent systematic reviews on related topics. Study Eligibility Criteria: Papers were limited to non-gray English-language studies of the adult population, published in the last 10 years. Outcome Measures: Primary outcomes were the number and categorization of quantitative studies reporting measures of sleep, the number of participants for each data collection method, and a synthesis of related material to appraise the use of survey tools commonly used for sleep measurement in the ICU. Results: Thirty-eight papers reported quantitative empirical data collection on sleep, 17 of which used a primary method of subjective assessment of sleep by the patient or nurse. Thirteen methods of subjective sleep assessment were identified. Many of these tools lacked validity and reliability testing. Conclusions: Research using questionnaires to assess sleep is commonplace in light of practical barriers to polysomnography or other measures of sleep. A methodologically sound approach to tool development and testing is crucial to gather meaningful data, and this robust approach was lacking in many cases. Further research measuring sleep subjectively in ICU should use the Richards Campbell Sleep Questionnaire, and researchers should maintain a commitment to transparency in describing methods.