4.5 Article

Do physical activity and body mass index modify the association between chronic musculoskeletal pain and insomnia? Longitudinal data from the HUNT study, Norway

Journal

JOURNAL OF SLEEP RESEARCH
Volume 27, Issue 1, Pages 32-39

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jsr.12580

Keywords

lifestyle factors; musculoskeletal health; sleep problems; widespread pain

Funding

  1. Liaison Committee

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We investigated the prospective association between chronic musculoskeletal pain and risk of insomnia, and if leisure-time physical activity and body mass index modify this association. The study comprised historical data on 11909 women and 9938 men in the Norwegian HUNT study without sleep problems at baseline in 1995-97 and followed-up for insomnia in 2006-08. Poisson regression was used to estimate adjusted risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Compared to pain-free participants, any chronic pain was associated with a RR of insomnia of 2.27 (95% CI: 1.93, 2.66) in women and 1.58 (95% CI: 1.28, 1.95) in men, whereas reporting 5 chronic pain sites gave RRs of 3.20 (95% CI: 2.60, 3.95) and 2.40 (95% CI: 1.76, 3.27), respectively. Analysis of joint effects showed that: (i) compared to pain-free physically active people, RRs in people with 5 chronic pain sites were 3.77 (95% CI: 2.42-5.85) if they were inactive and 2.76 (95% CI: 2.29, 3.31) if they were active; and (ii) compared to pain-free people with normal weight, RRs in people with 5 chronic pain sites were 3.52 (95% CI: 2.81, 4.40) if they were obese and 2.93 (95% CI: 2.24, 3.84) if they had normal weight. In conclusion, chronic musculoskeletal pain increases the risk of insomnia, particularly among those who report several pain sites. Although there was no clear evidence of modifying effects, our results suggest that a healthy active lifestyle reduces the risk of insomnia in people with chronic musculoskeletal pain.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available