4.4 Article

National Sleep Foundation's updated sleep duration recommendations: final report

Journal

SLEEP HEALTH
Volume 1, Issue 4, Pages 233-243

Publisher

ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.sleh.2015.10.004

Keywords

National Sleep Foundation; Sleep sufficiency; Sleep adequacy; Sleep by age; Life span sleep; RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method; Sleep need; Sleep time recommendations; Sleep duration

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To make scientifically sound and practical recommendations for daily sleep duration across the life span. Methods: The National Sleep Foundation convened a multidisciplinary expert panel (Panel) with broad representation from leading stakeholder organizations. The Panel evaluated the latest scientific evidence and participated in a formal consensus and voting process. Then, the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to formulate sleep duration recommendations. Results: The Panel made sleep duration recommendations for 9 age groups Sleep duration ranges, expressed as hours of sleep per day, were designated as recommended, may be appropriate, or not recommended. Recommended sleep durations are as follows: 14-17 hours for newborns, 12-15 hours for infants, 11-14 hours for toddlers, 10-13 hours for preschoolers, 9-11 hours for school-aged children, and 8-10 hours for teenagers. Seven to 9 hours is recommended for young adults and adults, and 7-8 hours of sleep is recommended for older adults. The self-designated basis for duration selection and critical discussions are also provided. Conclusions: Consensus for sleep duration recommendations was reached for specific age groupings. Consensus using a multidisciplinary expert Panel lends robust credibility to the results. Finally, limitations and caveats of these recommendations are discussed. (C) 2015 National Sleep Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. 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

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available