4.6 Article

Relationship between prenatal maternal stress and sleep quality in Chinese pregnant women: the mediation effect of resilience

期刊

SLEEP MEDICINE
卷 25, 期 -, 页码 8-12

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.sleep.2016.02.015

关键词

Prenatal maternal stress; Resilience; Sleep quality; Pregnant women

资金

  1. Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation [ZR2015HM064]
  2. Innovation Foundation for Young Talent Team of Shandong University [IFYT15010]
  3. Department of Science and Technology of Shandong Province [2015ZDXX0801A01]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds of Shandong University [2015QY001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To examine the relationship between prenatal maternal stress, resilience, and sleep quality, and to determine whether resilience plays a mediating role in the relationship between prenatal maternal stress and sleep quality among pregnant women. Methods: Two hundred and thirty-one pregnant women in their second trimester participated in the study. They completed questionnaires, including: the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), the Pregnancy Stress Rating Scale (PSRS), and the 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-10). A structural equation model was used to analyze the relationships among prenatal maternal stress, resilience, and sleep quality, with resilience as a mediator. Results: Prenatal maternal stress was negatively associated with sleep quality in pregnant women (p < 0.01), whereas resilience was positively associated with sleep quality (p < 0.01). Furthermore, resilience mediated the relationship between prenatal maternal stress and sleep quality, and the mediation effect ratio was 22.0% (p < 0.01). Conclusions: The risk factor for disturbed sleep was pregnancy-specific stress; however, the protective factor for sleep quality was resilience. This finding could provide scientific evidence for the development of intervention strategies with which to improve sleep quality in pregnant women. (C) 2016 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