Objective and Subjective Assessments of Lighting in a Hospital Setting: Implications for Health, Safety and Performance
Open accessAbstract
A field study was conducted to evaluate the illumination levels, to examine the effect of lighting conditions (including lighting characteristics and disturbances) on employee satisfaction, job performance, safety and health, and to compare the employees' perception of lighting level with actual illuminance levels in a hospital setting using both questionnaire and physical illuminance measurements. The illumination levels varied across different locations within the hospital and were lower than standards for 52.2% of the workplaces surveyed. Most respondents indicated that at least one of the four lighting characteristics (i.e. light level, type of light sources, light colour and use of daylight) was inappropriate, and that at least one of the three lighting disturbances (i.e. flickering lights, glare and unwanted shadows) was a major disturbance to them. The employees' perceptions of illuminance generally reflected the actual illuminance levels. The more appropriate maintenance or installation of lighting fixtures was rated as the most appropriate for improving lighting. The findings suggest that environmental ergonomics should be given a more prominent role in hospital building and workplace design to support safer healthcare facilities (for staff and potentially for patients). PRACTITIONER SUMMARY: Good lighting is essential to improve employee performance, health and safety. The findings suggest that quantitative physical measurements should be supplemented by qualitative subjective assessments to provide a more holistic approach where specific details about the lighting condition in each working environment are incorporated from the workers' perspective.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Lighting conditions like flickering, glare, and distracting shadows can induce visual discomfort.
“Lighting conditions like flickering, glare, and distracting shadows can induce visual discomfort.”
From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [294]
The available copy contains a title, keywords, and citation metadata, but no substantive passage about flickering, glare, distracting shadows, or visual discomfort. Searches for those terms returned only metadata, so the claim cannot be checked against this copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredConstant eye strain and posture adjustments to see details more clearly will complicate and prolong the diagnostic process.
“Constant eye strain and posture adjustments to see details more clearly will complicate and prolong the diagnostic process [294].”
From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [294]
The indexed copy contains bibliographic metadata and a repository note saying the article is unavailable, but no passage about eye strain, posture adjustments, or diagnostic time. Searches for those terms and related lighting effects returned no substantive passage, so the claim cannot be checked against this copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 37 · Cited by 80
- Authors
- Dianat, I., Sedghi, A., Bagherzade, J., Jafarabadi, M. A., & Stedmon, A. W.
- Affiliations
- Tabriz University of Medical Sciences (IR)
- Sheffield Hallam University (GB)
- Venue
- Ergonomics
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-07-23
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1535-1545
- ISSN
- 0014-0139 (ISSN-L)
- 1366-5847
- OpenAlex
- W1995513795
- Cited by
- 80
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 4.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Ergonomics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Coventry University Open Collections (Coventry university) (submittedVersion)
- Pure (Coventry University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- The Open Collections (Coventry University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Tabriz University of Medical Sciences
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Facilities and Workplace Management
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Ergonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders
- Keywords
- hospital lighting, illumination level, lighting characteristics, glare, flicker, shadow, job satisfaction, employee performance, occupational health and safety, lighting perception, environmental ergonomics, workplace design
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Health Facility Environment, Hospitals, Humans, Lighting, Male, Middle Aged, Safety, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review