4.6 Article

Association between weekend catch-up sleep duration and hypertension in Korean adults

期刊

SLEEP MEDICINE
卷 14, 期 6, 页码 549-554

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.sleep.2013.02.009

关键词

Weekday sleep duration; Weekend catch-up sleep duration; Hypertension Subjective sleep insufficiency; Korean adults

资金

  1. Daewoong pharmaceutical company

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Our objective was to investigate if weekend catch-up sleep is independently related to a decrease in the risk for hypertension in Korean adults. Methods: The subjects included 2782 Korean adults ages 19 years and older. Data on demographic variables, sleep duration (weekday and weekend), and hypertension were obtained using questionnaires. Logistic regression analyses were performed to test the association between hypertension and sleep duration (weekday and weekend catch-up sleep duration); we also adjusted for possible covariates. Results: After adjustment for confounding variables, we found that individuals who slept less than 6 hours a night had an increased odds ratio (OR) for hypertension (OR, 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-2.64) compared to individuals who slept 7 to < 8 hours a night. Furthermore, one hour of weekend catch-up sleep was significantly associated with decreased risk for hypertension (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72-0.95). There were significant differences for groups with and without subjective sleep insufficiency in the association between weekend catch-up sleep duration and the prevalence of hypertension; in addition, the effect of an extra hour of weekend catch-up sleep per night on hypertension was stronger in those subjects who experienced subjective sleep insufficiency (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.46-0.82). Conclusions: Sleeping more on the weekend to compensate for weekday sleep deficit could lower the risk for hypertension in Korean adults, especially in Korean adults who have the subjective symptom of sleep insufficiency. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据