Light therapy is increasingly administered and studied as a non-pharmacologic treatment for a variety of healthrelated problems, including treatment of people with dementia. Light therapy comes in a variety of ways, ranging from being exposed to daylight, to being exposed to light emitted by light boxes and ambient bright light. Light therapy is an area in medicine where medical sciences meet the realms of physics, engineering and technology. Therefore, it is paramount that attention is paid in the methodology of studies to the technical aspects in their full breadth. This paper provides an extensive introduction for non-technical researchers on how to describe and adjust their methodology when involved in lighting therapy research. A specific focus in this manuscript is on ambient bright light, as it is an emerging field within the domain of light therapy. The paper deals with how to (i) describe the lighting equipment, (ii) describe the light measurements, (iii) describe the building and interaction with daylight. Moreover, attention is paid to the uncertainty in standards and guidelines regarding light and lighting for older adults.
BackgroundHyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is used to treat various wound types. However, the possible beneficial and harmful effects of HBOT for acute wounds are unclear.MethodsWe undertook a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of HBOT compared to other interventions on wound healing and adverse effects in patients with acute wounds. To detect all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) we searched five relevant databases up to March 2010. Trial selection, quality assessment, data extraction, and data synthesis were conducted by two of the authors independently.ResultsWe included five trials, totaling 360 patients. These trials, with some methodologic flaws, included different kinds of wound and focused on different outcome parameters, which prohibited meta-analysis. A French trial (n = 36 patients) reported that significantly more crush wounds healed with HBOT than with sham HBOT [relative risk (RR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11–2.61]. Moreover, there were significantly fewer additional surgical procedures required with HBOT (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.03–2.50), and there was significantly less tissue necrosis (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.11–2.61). In one of two American trials (n = 141) burn wounds healed significantly quicker with HBOT (P < 0.005) than with routine burn care. A British trial (n = 48) compared HBOT with usual care. HBOT resulted in a significantly higher percentage of healthy graft area in split skin grafts (RR 3.50, 95% CI 1.35–9.11). In a Chinese trial (n = 145) HBOT did not significantly improve flap survival in patients with limb skin defects.ConclusionsHBOT, if readily available, appears effective for the management of acute, difficult to heal wounds.
While there is increasing evidence for the effectiveness of psychosocial support programs for cancer patients, little attention has been paid to creativity or art as a way of addressing their psychological problems and improving quality of life. This review provides an overview of interventional studies that investigate the effects of art therapy interventions on anxiety, depression, and quality of life in adults with cancer.