4.6 Article

Changes in self-reported sleep duration with age-a 36-year longitudinal study of Finnish adults

Journal

BMC PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-020-09376-z

Keywords

Sleep length; Population; Longitudinal study; Weibull regression models; Sleep ontogeny

Funding

  1. Finska Lakaresallskapet
  2. Academy of Finland [265240, 263278, 308248, 312073]
  3. Academy of Finland (AKA) [308248, 308248] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Sleep deprivation is often claimed to be increasingly common, but most studies show small changes in sleep duration over the last decades. Our aim was to analyze long-term patterns in self-reported sleep duration in a population-based cohort. Methods Members of the Older Finnish Twin Cohort have responded to questionnaires in 1975 (N = 30,915 individuals, response rate 89%, mean age 36 years), 1981 (24,535, 84%, 41 years), 1990 (12,450, 77%, 44 years), and 2011 (8334, 72%, 60 years). Weibull regression models were used to model the effects of follow-up time and age simultaneously. Results Sleep duration has decreased in all adult age groups and in both genders. The mean duration was in men 7.57 h in 1975 and 7.39 in 2011, and in women 7.69 and 7.37, respectively. The decrease was about 0.5 min in men and 0.9 in women per year of follow-up. In the age-group 18-34 years, mean sleep length was 7.69 h in 1975 and 7.53 in 1990. Among 35-54-year-old it was 7.57 h in 1975 and 7.34 in 2011, and in the age group of 55+ year olds 7.52 and 7.38, correspondingly. The change was largest in middle-aged group: about 23 min or about 0.6 min per year of follow-up. Conclusions There has been a slight decrease in mean sleep duration during the 36-year follow-up. Although the sleep duration was longer in 1970s and 1980s, the probable main cause for the change in this study population is the effect of aging.

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