4.6 Article

Sleep problems in children with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability without autism spectrum disorder

期刊

SLEEP MEDICINE
卷 40, 期 -, 页码 69-77

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.sleep.2017.09.021

关键词

Sleep problems; Autism spectrum disorder; Intellectual disability; Co-sleeping

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the sleep problems and their correlations in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), intellectual disability without ASD (ID), and typically developing children (TDC). Methods: This study included 142 children (48 with ASD, 46 with ID, 48 with TDC) aged between 2 and 18 years old. Parents of the children completed the Childhood Sleep Habits Questionnaire (CSHQ) in order to evaluate sleep disturbances. The sociodemographic and clinical information were noted on a data form for each child. Results: The mean total score of CSHQ was 41.56, 47.89 and 51.78 respectively in TDC, ASD and ID groups. While the total CSHQ score was significantly lower in TDC, there was no significant difference between ID and ASD groups (p = 0.09). It was revealed that children having a neurodevelopmental disorder had a 2.8-fold increased risk of sleep disturbance, history of sleep disorder in the parents had a 3.1-fold increased risk, psychiatric comorbidity in the child had a 3.3-fold increased risk, and co-sleeping with parents had 13.1-fold increased risk. However, in the binary regression analysis, co-sleeping with parents and family history of sleep problems significantly increased the risk of sleep disturbance. Conclusion: Sleep disturbances are more frequent in children with ASD and ID than TDC. Co-sleeping with parents and family history of sleep problems increase the risk of sleep disturbances. Thus, behavioral techniques especially focusing on co-sleeping problems and focusing on parents' sleep habits may improve the sleep disturbances in children with ID and ASD. (C) 2017 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