4.5 Article

Gender-Specific Differences in Access to Polysomnography and Prevalence of Sleep Disorders

Journal

JOURNAL OF WOMENS HEALTH
Volume 27, Issue 4, Pages 525-530

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2017.6482

Keywords

insomnia; sleep breathing disorder; narcolepsy; RLS; gender

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Previous studies have shown that women have less access or longer waiting times to high-tech medicine compared with men. This study aimed to detect possible gender differences in access to the diagnostic high-tech method of polysomnography (PSG). Furthermore, the study explored gender differences in prevalence of specific sleep diseases. Materials and Methods: Source data of n = 1000 patients, who underwent PSG at the Medical University of Innsbruck, were reviewed. Clinical data regarding time elapsed between symptom onset and PSG as well as final diagnoses were analyzed for gender differences. Results: Six hundred sixty-nine men and 331 women were examined with PSG. There were no gender differences in access to PSG after first presentation to the sleep laboratory. Significantly more men than women (13.3 vs. 6.9%) were referred to medical examination because of abnormal observations by their bed partner. In men we found more sleep-related breathing disorders and fragmentary myoclonus, whereas in women insomnia was more common. Sleep-related breathing disorders showed a more severe manifestation in men, however, there was no difference in treatment with continuous positive airway pressure/biphasic positive airway pressure therapy between male and female patients. Conclusion: Twice as many men than women received a PSG. This is explained by the referral rates to the sleep laboratory. While there are well-established gender differences for some sleep disorders, the fact that twice as many men than women were referred to the sleep laboratory could indicate a lower awareness for sleep disorders in women.

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