Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Sleep problems and circadian misalignment affect health and well-being and are highly prevalent in those with co-morbid neuropsychiatric disorders. Interventions altering light exposure patterns of affected individuals are a promising non-pharmacological treatment option, shown by previous meta-analyses to improve sleep, and often described as minimally invasive. To best translate laboratory-based mechanistic research into effective treatments, acceptability and barriers to adherence should be understood, but these have not yet been systematically evaluated. Here, we examined evidence regarding adherence and acceptability in studies of light or dark interventions using various delivery devices and protocols to improve sleep in intrinsic circadian rhythm sleep-wake disorders and neuropsychiatric illness. Attrition during intervention was low, and reported experiences were largely positive, but measurement and reporting of self-reported experiences, expectations, and adverse effects were poor. Approaches to management and measurement of adherence were varied, and available light monitoring technology appeared under-exploited, as did mobile technology to prompt or track adherence. Based on these findings we suggest recommended reporting items on acceptability and adherence for future investigations. Few studies assessed baseline light exposure patterns, and few personalised interventions. Overall, many applied studies exhibited an approach to light schedule interventions still reminiscent of laboratory protocols; this is unlikely to maximise acceptability and clinical effectiveness. For the next phase of translational research, user acceptability and adherence should receive increased attention during intervention design and study design. We suggest framing light therapies as complex interventions, and emphasise the occupationally embedded (daily activity routine embedded) context in which they occur.
Faulkner et al. (Thu,) studied this question.