4.1 Article

Sleep and stress in mother-toddler dyads living in low-income homes

期刊

DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOBIOLOGY
卷 63, 期 5, 页码 1635-1643

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/dev.22077

关键词

child; hair cortisol; low‐ income; sleep; stress

资金

  1. National Institute of Nursing Research [F31NR017103, T32NR014225]
  2. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [P2CHD058484]
  3. Ohio Nurses Foundation
  4. Ohio State University College of Nursing
  5. Jonas Foundation
  6. Sigma Theta Tau International
  7. Ohio State University Graduate School
  8. Crane Center for Early Childhood Research and Policy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that toddler sleeping difficulties are not directly influenced by maternal stress, but higher levels of stress in toddlers predict greater difficulties in sleep later on.
Optimal sleeping behaviors are critical for overall development, yet some evidence suggests stress and living in a low-income environment are associated with disruptions of sleeping behaviors early in life. In this study, we investigated the association of toddler sleeping behaviors, particularly difficulties initiating and/or maintaining sleep (DIMS), and maternal and toddler prolonged stress using hair cortisol from dyads living in low-income homes. Hair cortisol was mainly sampled at the posterior vertex of mothers and toddlers (age 20-24 months) and analyzed with immunoassay (n = 94). Toddler DIMS were assessed at 15-19 and 27-31 months of age through mother-rated reports using the Tayside Children's Sleep Questionnaire. We found no associations between toddler DIMS and maternal stress. Additionally, early DIMS did not predict toddler stress. However, while controlling for early DIMS and sociodemographic factors, we found that higher toddler stress predicted greater DIMS in later toddlerhood (b = -2.28, SE = 0.98, p = .02, d(s) = 0.64). These study findings highlight the importance of understanding the role of early life stress on later sleep patterns.

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

4.1
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