4.6 Review

Risk factors for sleep disturbances in older adults: Evidence from prospective studies

Journal

SLEEP MEDICINE REVIEWS
Volume 25, Issue -, Pages 21-30

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.smrv.2015.01.003

Keywords

Aging; Insomnia; Prospective research; Risk factors; Sleep disturbance; Sleep quality

Funding

  1. [T32 AG000181]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

No systematic review of epidemiological evidence has examined risk factors for sleep disturbances among older adults. We searched the PubMed database combining search terms targeting the following domains 1) prospective, 2) sleep, and 3) aging, and identified 21 relevant population-based studies with prospective sleep outcome data. Only two studies utilized objective measures of sleep disturbance, while six used the Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI) and thirteen used insomnia symptoms or other sleep complaints as the outcome measure. Female gender, depressed mood, and physical illness were most consistently identified as risks for future sleep disturbances. Less robust evidence implicated the following as potentially relevant predictors: lower physical activity levels, African-American race, lower economic status, previous manual occupation, widowhood, marital quality, loneliness and perceived stress, preclinical dementia, long-term benzodiazepine and sedative use, low testosterone levels, and inflammatory markers. Chronological age was not identified as a consistent, independent predictor of future sleep disturbances. In conclusion, prospective studies have identified female gender, depressed mood, and physical illness as general risk factors for future sleep disturbances in later life, although specific physiological pathways have not yet been established. Research is needed to determine the precise mechanisms through which these factors influence sleep over time. (C) 2015 Elsevier 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