4.6 Article

Infant Sleep Disturbance Is Associated with Preconceptional Psychological Distress: Findings from the Southampton Women's Survey

Journal

SLEEP
Volume 32, Issue 4, Pages 566-568

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/sleep/32.4.566

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. British Heart Foundation [SP/02/003/14542] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Medical Research Council [MC_UP_A620_1017] Funding Source: Medline
  3. Medical Research Council [U1475000004] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Study Objective: To determine whether preconceptional psychological distress is associated with infant sleep disturbance. Design: Prospective cohort study Setting: Southampton, UK. Participants: A cohort of women from the Southampton Women's Survey (SWS), who were recruited between 20-34 years of age and followed through their subsequent pregnancies and beyond; a total of 874 mother-infant pairs were involved in the study. Measurements and Results: Preconceptional psychological distress was measured with the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). When their infants were 6 and 12 months of age, mothers were asked to report the number of times babies woke on average between the hours of midnight and 06:00 each night during a 2-week period. Preconceptional psychological distress was a strong predictor of infant night waking at both 6 and 12 months of age, independent of the effects of postnatal depression, bedroom sharing, and other confounding factors. At 6 months, preconceptional distress was associated with a 23% increased risk of waking (prevalence ratio [PR] 1.23, 95% CI 1.06-1.44), and at 12 months with a 22% increased risk (PR 1.22, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.02-1.46). Conclusions: Women with preconceptional psychological distress are more likely to have babies with sleep disturbance during infancy, independent of whether they suffered from postnatal depression.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available