Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Sensory environment on health‐related outcomes of hospital patients

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005315.pub2Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 14 March 2012see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Review
Cochrane Editorial Group:
  1. Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2014 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Amy Drahota

    Correspondence to: UK Cochrane Centre, National Institute for Health Research, Oxford, UK

    [email protected]

    [email protected]

  • Derek Ward

    School of Health Sciences & Social Work, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK

  • Heather Mackenzie

    School of Health Sciences & Social Work, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK

  • Rebecca Stores

    School of Health Sciences & Social Work, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK

  • Bernie Higgins

    Department of Mathematics, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, Hampshire, UK

  • Diane Gal

    Irigny, France

  • Taraneh P Dean

    School of Health Sciences & Social Work, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK

Contributions of authors

AD developed the review content, wrote protocol and developed the initial search strategy. AD conducted the initial searching accept for EMBASE (which was conducted by the Trials Search Co‐ordinator, Jessie McGowan), screened citations, scrutinised abstracts to identify potential papers, obtained hard copies of potential papers, applied inclusion/exclusion criteria to identified papers, extracted data, and wrote final review manuscript.

RS, DW and TD developed review content and contributed to writing the protocol. They screened citations, scrutinised abstracts to identify potential papers, applied inclusion/exclusion criteria to identified papers, extracted data, contributed to the writing of the final review manuscript and provided methodological advice throughout the process.

HM and DG applied inclusion/exclusion criteria, extracted data, and contributed to the final review manuscript.

BH advised on data analysis techniques and reviewed the data analysis section of the protocol. BH provided statistical support and advice throughout the review.

All reviewers read and approved the final review manuscript.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • No sources of support supplied

External sources

  • Dunhill Medical Trust. Registered Charity No. 294286, UK.

Declarations of interest

The review authors (AD, DW, TD, BH) are involved in the conduct of the ongoing study (NCT00817869) referred to in the discussion.

Acknowledgements

Protocol and review support:
Sasha Shepperd, Alain Mayhew, Laura McAuley, Phil Alderson, Andy Oxman, Jeremy Grimshaw.

Elizabeth Galloway contributed to writing the protocol, screening citations, abstracts, and full reports. Faridah Nanfuka contributed to the extraction of data for the 'Risk of bias' tool, the updated search, and screening citations.

Search strategy support:
Roisin Gwyer (subject specialist librarian), Ian Mayfield (subject specialist librarian), Andy Barrow (subject specialist librarian), Janet Wilmot (inter‐library loans), Jessie McGowan (Trials Search Co‐ordinator), Michelle Fiander (Trials Search Co‐ordinator).

Foreign language support:
Diane Gal (Portuguese); Lucy Birchwood (French); Sabine Quandte and Monja Knoll (German); Janine Givati‐Teerling and Aldert Vrij (Dutch); Katarzyna Zinken (Polish); Lyuda Wade (Russian); John Wong (Chinese); Endre Kadar (Hungarian); Tomoko Yamashita (Japanese).

Financial Support:
The Dunhill Medical Trust (Registered research charity) provided the salary of AD for a separately funded project of which this review formed part.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2012 Mar 14

Sensory environment on health‐related outcomes of hospital patients

Review

Amy Drahota, Derek Ward, Heather Mackenzie, Rebecca Stores, Bernie Higgins, Diane Gal, Taraneh P Dean

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005315.pub2

2004 Oct 18

Sensory environment on health‐related outcomes of hospital patients

Protocol

Amy Drahota, Rebecca Stores, Derek Ward, Elizabeth Galloway, Bernie Higgins, Taraneh P Dean

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005315

Differences between protocol and review

Our protocol stated that we would include non‐randomised studies, due to feasibility issues often raised when researching the environment. Following review by our contact editor, the decision was made to remove 24 non‐randomised CCTs on music. Initially, these studies were included and summarised separately to the 85 included RCTs on music. In general, the CCTs reported similar findings to the RCTs however the quality of the studies was lower. The removal of these studies did not alter the conclusions of the review. Since RCTs are generally feasible in the study of music interventions, and there are so many RCTs exploring the use of music in hospital, it was felt that the CCTs were not providing any further valuable information to the review, which has sought to summarise the best available evidence.

We initially planned to assess heterogeneity through using the I2 statistic with a cut‐off point of 50% (i.e. > 50% would be considered heterogeneous). We have since revised this approach (to that specified in the data analysis section of the review) in alignment with revisions to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (version 5; Higgins 2008), in which the use of cut‐off points are no longer recommended. Further to the release of the new Handbook (Higgins 2008), we have incorporated a 'Risk of bias' assessment utilising the new 'Risk of bias' tool.

In our exploration of heterogeneity for studies on music, we conducted subgroup analyses based on whether patients were offered a choice of music or given set pieces. These analyses were post‐hoc as they were not planned for in the protocol (although in our protocol we did specify that we would set out to find interventions which provided patient controls over the environment‐ such as access to lighting and ventilation controls). We felt that it would be useful to explore these variations in the way the music interventions were administered since patient choice and providing patients with a sense of control is often advocated as beneficial.

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.