Hospital employees’ perceptions of circadian lighting: a pharmacy department case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose An interdisciplinary body of literature has focused on the role of lighting in mitigating patient and employee stress and error-producing conditions in hospital settings. The purpose of this study is to explore how a new circadian lighting system installed in a small pharmacy unit with no penetration of natural light is experienced by staff. Psychosocial variables, such as affective organizational commitment, perceived productivity, well-being, and satisfaction with the physical work environment, were measured to further a line of inquiry that may help facilities managers and hospital administrators make optimal choices when purchasing lighting and commissioning retrofits. Design/methodology/approach Post-occupancy evaluation; mixed methods survey design. Findings While affective organizational commitment, perceived productivity, well-being and satisfaction with the physical work environment were experienced, to some extent, by employees, low average responses about whether the setting had improved, as the circadian lighting had been installed suggest that the retrofit did not affect them as positively as expected. Counter to the intention of the installation, participants did not perceive the circadian lighting as having strongly improved their levels of stress, concentration, mood or fatigue at work. Originality/value More research on simulated daylighting should be done to optimize occupant responses to lighting retrofits in hospitals. This case study supports recommendations to measure relevant psychosocial variables before and after a design change. Similarly, sized units within hospitals and health care facilities that possess analogous dimensions and design constraints concerning a lack of daylight penetration will benefit from this study’s mixed methods, results and interpretations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".