4.6 Article

Racial Disparities in Short Sleep Duration by Occupation and Industry

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 178, Issue 9, Pages 1442-1451

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwt159

Keywords

industry; occupation; race; sleep; work

Funding

  1. Harvard Transdisciplinary Research in Energetics and Cancer [1U54CA155626-01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Short sleep duration, which is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, has been shown to vary by occupation and industry, but few studies have investigated differences between black and white populations. By using data from a nationally representative sample of US adult short sleepers (n 41,088) in the National Health Interview Survey in 20042011, we estimated prevalence ratios for short sleep duration in blacks compared with whites for each of 8 industry categories by using adjusted Poisson regression models with robust variance. Participants mean age was 47 years; 50 were women and 13 were black. Blacks were more likely to report short sleep duration than whites (37 vs. 28), and the black-white disparity was widest among those who held professional occupations. Adjusted short sleep duration was more prevalent in blacks than whites in the following industry categories: finance/information/real estate (prevalence ratio (PR) 1.44, 95 confidence interval (CI): 1.30, 1.59); professional/administrative/management (PR 1.30, 95 CI: 1.18, 1.44); educational services (PR 1.39, 95 CI: 1.25, 1.54); public administration/arts/other services (PR 1.30, 95 CI: 1.21, 1.41); health care/social assistance (PR 1.23, 95 CI: 1.14, 1.32); and manufacturing/construction (PR 1.14, 95 CI: 1.07, 1.20). Short sleep generally increased with increasing professional responsibility within a given industry among blacks but decreased with increasing professional roles among whites. Our results suggest the need for further investigation of racial/ethnic differences in the work-sleep relationship.

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