ArticleSleep medicine: X2022
Patient-nurse agreement on inpatient sleep and sleep disturbing factors.
Article in Sleep medicine: X, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of the patient-reported and nurse-rated Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire in neurorehabilitation inpatients.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2026Article
- Sleep disturbances in hospitalized children: a wake-up call.European journal of pediatrics · 2024Observational
- Sleeping with one cerebrum open: patient and staff perceptions of sleep quality and quantity on an inpatient neurology unit.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2024Observational
- Sleep in hospitalized pediatric and adult patients - A systematic review and meta-analysis.Sleep medicine: X · 2022Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sleep is vital for recovery during hospital stay. Many sleep-promoting interventions have been investigated in the past. Nurses seem to overestimate their patients sleep and their perspective is needed for these interventions to be successfully implemented. Objectives: To assess the patient's and nurse's agreement on the patient's sleep and factors disturbing sleep. Methods: The instruments used included 1) five Richard-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire (RCSQ) items plus a rating of nighttime noise and 2) the Consensus Sleep Diary (CSD). The mean of the five RCSQ items comprised a total score, which reflects sleep quality. Once a week, unannounced, nurses and patients were asked to fill in questionnaires concerning last night's sleep. Neither nurses nor patients knew the others' ratings. Patient-nurse agreement was evaluated by using median differences and Bland-Altman plots. Reliability was evaluated by using intraclass correlation coefficients. Results: Fifty-five paired patient-nurse assessments have been completed. For all RCSQ subitems, nurses' scores were higher (indicating "better" sleep) than patients' scores, with a significantly higher rating for sleep depth (median [IQR], 70 [40] vs 50 [40], P = .012). The Bland-Altman plots for the RSCQ Total Score (r = 0.0593, P = .008) revealed a significant amount of variation (bias). The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) indicated poor reliability for all 7 measures (range -0.278 - 0.435). Nurses were relatively overestimating their own role in causing sleep disturbances and underestimating patient-related factors. Conclusions: Nurses tend to overestimate patients' sleep quality as well as their own role in causing sleep disturbances.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.