4.6 Article

The relationship between sleep duration and activities of daily living (ADL) disability in the Chinese oldest-old: A cross-sectional study

期刊

PEERJ
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PEERJ INC
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.14856

关键词

Oldest-old; Prevalence of ADL disability; Sleep duration; ADL disability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Among the oldest-old individuals in China, sleep duration exceeding 12 hours may be associated with an increased risk of activities of daily living (ADL) disability, and the optimal sleep duration for this population could be 8-10 hours.
Objective. To investigate the relationship between sleep duration and activities of daily living (ADL) disability, and to explore the optimal sleep duration among oldest-old Chinese individuals.Methods. In this cross-sectional study, 1,798 participants (73.2% female) were recruited from Dongxing and Shanglin in Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China in 2019. The restricted cubic spline function was used to assess the dose-response relationship between sleep duration and ADL disability, and the odds ratios (ORs) of the associations were estimated by logistic regression models.Results. The overall prevalence of ADL disability was 63% (64% in females and 58% in males). The prevalence was 71% in the Han population (72% in females and 68% in males), 60% in the Zhuang population (62% in females and 54% in males) and 53% in other ethnic population (53% in females and 53% in males). A nonlinear relationship between sleep duration and ADL disability was observed. Sleep duration of 8-10 hours was associated with the lowest risk of ADL disability. Sleep duration (>= 12 hours) was associated with the risk of ADL disability among the oldest-old individuals after adjusting for confounding factors (OR = 1.47, 95% CI [1.02, 2.10], p < 0.05).Conclusion. Sleep duration more than 12 hours may be associated with an increased risk of ADL disability in the oldest-old individuals, and the optimal sleep duration among this population could be 8-10 h.

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