Evaluation of oxygen saturation values in different body positions in healthy individuals

Burcu Ceylan, Leyla Khorshid, Ülkü Yapucu Güneş and Ayten Zaybak

Journal of Clinical Nursing, 2016, vol. 25, issue 7-8, 1095-1100

Abstract: Aims and objectives The research was conducted to evaluate oxygen saturation values measured in healthy individuals in different body positions. Background Changes in position affect ventilation‐perfusion rates, oxygen transport and lung volume in normal lungs. There have been few studies and not enough information about which positioning of a healthy individual can increase oxygenation. Design A descriptive study. Methods A sample of 103 healthy individuals with no chronic disease, anaemia or pain was included in the research. Individuals were positioned in five different positions: sitting upright, supine position, prone position, lying on the left side and lying on the right side. Oxygen saturation and pulse rates were then measured and recorded after the individuals held each position for ten minutes. Results It was found that the average oxygen saturation value when measured while sitting in an upright position in a chair was significantly higher than that measured when the individual was lying on the right or left side of the body. Oxygen saturation values measured in the five different body positions were significantly higher in women, in individuals below the age of 35, in those with Body Mass Indexes of below 25 kg/m2, and in nonsmokers. Conclusion All of the oxygen saturation values measured in the five different body positions were in the normal range. Although oxygen saturation values were within the normal range in the five different body positions, post hoc analysis showed that the best oxygenation was in the ‘sitting upright’ position while the lowest oxygenation was in the supine position. Relevance to clinical practice Based on the results of this research, it can be concluded that the differences among oxygen saturation values according to the different body positions were statistically significant.

Date: 2016
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13189

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:25:y:2016:i:7-8:p:1095-1100

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Clinical Nursing from John Wiley & Sons
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().