4.5 Article

Factors associated with objective (actigraphic) and subjective sleep quality in young adult women

Journal

JOURNAL OF PSYCHOSOMATIC RESEARCH
Volume 59, Issue 1, Pages 11-19

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2005.03.008

Keywords

sleep; actigraphy; women; employment; day of week; daylight hours; menstrual cycle length; alcohol consumption; perceived stress

Categories

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01CA80346, T32CA090001] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIEHS NIH HHS [T32ES07262] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIMH NIH HHS [K02MH01158] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The aim of this study was to describe factors associated with actigraphic and subjective sleep quality in young women. Methods: Participants were 73 regularly menstruating women, 20-40 years old, who were not taking oral contraceptives, pregnant, or shift workers. Women contributed an average of 7 nights of actigraphy data during the luteal menstrual cycle phase, resulting in a total of 595 nights of data. Results: One night of actigraphy data was unreliable for measuring total sleep time, sleep onset, and time in bed (intraclass correlation 5.15) but was acceptable for measuring sleep efficiency and total wake time (intraclass correlation [ICC]=.52). Going to bed late, medication use, employment, increased daylight hours, longer menstrual cycle length, and higher body mass index (BMI) were associated with poorer actigraphic sleep measures. Employment, age, and perceived stress were associated with subjective sleep quality. Conclusion: Multiple factors were associated with sleep quality in these young women who were sleeping at home. However, the associations differed for subjectively versus actigraphically assessed sleep quality. Actigraphy is feasible for measuring sleep, but multiple recording nights may be needed to obtain reliable estimates. (c) 2005 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

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available