4.5 Article

Sleep quality at 3 months postpartum considering maternal age: A comparative study

Journal

WOMEN AND BIRTH
Volume 31, Issue 6, Pages E367-E373

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.wombi.2018.02.004

Keywords

Sleep; Postpartum period; Sleep quality; Maternal age; Maternal health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Poor sleep quality is related to old age among the general population, but few studies have focused on postpartum women of advanced maternal age. The present study aimed to describe and compare sleep quality between women younger or older than 35 years of age at 3 months postpartum, and to examine the related factors. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with 160 postpartum women who had given birth at a teaching hospital in Taiwan. The participants were assigned to two groups according to age (>= 35 years, n = 80; and 20-34 years, n = 80). Sleep quality was measured using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index with a cut-off score of 5. Results: The prevalence of poor sleep quality at 3 months postpartum was higher in older mothers (61.6%) than in younger mothers (38.4%, p < 0.01). Multiple logistic regression revealed that poor sleep quality was positively correlated with the severity of postpartum physical symptoms, lack of exercise, and room-sharing with infants. After adjustment for those variables, older mothers were three times more likely to have poor sleep quality than younger mothers (odds ratio = 3.08; 95% confidence interval 1.52-6.23). Conclusion: Health care providers should pay attention to sleep problems among postpartum women, especially mothers of advanced maternal age. In particular, health care providers should evaluate sleep quality among postpartum women, instruct them not to share the bed with their infants at night, perform exercise, and manage their postpartum physical symptoms to improve the sleep quality. (c) 2018 Australian College of Midwives. Published by 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

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available