4.6 Article

Gender differences in actual and preferred nocturnal sleep duration among Finnish employed population

Journal

MATURITAS
Volume 94, Issue -, Pages 77-83

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2016.09.002

Keywords

Gender; Health-related quality of life; Man; Preferred sleep duration; Sleep; Sleep duration; Sleep loss; Woman

Funding

  1. Governmental Research Grant (EVO)
  2. Turku University Foundation (Kosti Hammaro Foundation)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Sufficient sleep is essential for health and working capacity. Shorter sleep duration on workdays is often compensated by sleeping longer during leisure days. Gender dissimilarities in sleep quality are acknowledged. Our aim was to study the less known gender differences in sleep duration. Methods: A population based study with a total of 1049 middle-aged regularly working women (n = 524) and men (n = 525). A questionnaire of sleep durations on workdays and leisure days, preferred sleep duration, with health-related quality of life and health behavior. Results: Women slept 14 min longer on workdays (p < 0.002) and 27 min longer on leisure days (p < 0.002) and had 32 min longer preferred sleep duration (p < 0.001) than men. Compared to workdays, women slept 1 h 57 minutes longer and men 1 h 42 min longer on leisure days (gender p < 0.001). On workdays, both women and men slept less than their preferred sleep duration and again, with more extensive difference in women (gender-interaction p < 0.001). On leisure days the excessive sleep time did not differ between genders (p = 0.346). None of the explanatory variables explained the gender differences in sleep durations. Conclusions: Sleep loss on workdays is presumably more pronounced in women, since despite their longer sleep on workdays, the gender differences persist in both sleep duration on leisure days and in preferred sleep duration. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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