Exploring bed sensor sleep technology: insights from an interdisciplinary team in a geriatric assessment inpatient setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sleep quality is a critical component of health and recovery for hospitalized older adults, yet current monitoring practices often lack the precision and detail required for effective intervention. This qualitative study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and acceptance of implementing the Sleepsense bed sensor for sleep monitoring in a geriatric inpatient hospital setting. This qualitative study involved interviews with 22 patients and focus groups with 33 interdisciplinary staff members. Data were analyzed using an interpretive description approach, guided by the technology acceptance model and unified theory of acceptance and use of technology, to explore the feasibility and acceptance of Sleepsense bed sensors in a geriatric inpatient setting. Key findings from thematic analysis emerged in three main themes representing the feasibility and acceptance of Sleepsense bed sensors among hospitalized older adults: user acceptance, integration with somnolog into clinical practice, and implementation barriers and practical challenges. Staff reported high acceptance of Sleepsense technology due to its nonintrusiveness and ability to reduce disruptive nighttime checks. However, challenges such as the need for consent, data interpretation and occasional inaccuracies were also identified. Integrating Sleepsense with existing care practices was recommended to enhance patient care while maintaining staff confidence. These findings underscore the potential of advanced sleep monitoring technologies in subacute care settings and highlight the importance of addressing implementation barriers for effective adoption.
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 | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".