4.6 Article

Habitual Physical Activity and Sleep Duration in Institutionalized Older Adults

期刊

FRONTIERS IN NEUROLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2021.706340

关键词

accelerometry; Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index; nursing home; old age health; sleep quality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is no direct association between physical activity levels and sleep quality in older adults. However, a shorter sleep duration of 5 to 6 hours was associated with higher levels of physical activity.
Background: Physical activity and sleep quality are both major factors for improving one's health. Knowledge on the interactions of sleep quality and the amount of physical activity may be helpful for implementing multimodal health interventions in older adults. Methods: This preliminary cross-sectional study is based on 64 participants [82.1 +/- 6.4 years (MD +/- SD); 22 male: 42 female]. The amount of physical activity was assessed by means of an accelerometer (MyWellness Key). Self-reported sleep parameters were obtained using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. The Barthel Index was used for physical disability rating. Bivariate correlations (Spearman's Rho) were used to explore relationships between the amount of physical activity and sleep quality. To analyse differences between categorial subgroups univariate ANOVAs were applied; in cases of significance, these were followed by Tukey-HSD post-hoc analyses. Results: No linear association between physical activity and sleep quality was found (r = 0.119; p > 0.05). In subgroup analyses (n = 41, Barthel Index >= 90 pts, free of pre-existing conditions), physical activity levels differed significantly between groups of different sleep duration (>= 7 h; >= 6 to p = 0.037). Conclusion: There is no general association between higher activity levels and better sleep quality in the investigated cohort. However, a sleep duration of >= 5 to <6 h, corresponding to 7.6 h bed rest time, was associated with a higher level of physical activity.

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