4.1 Article

Sleep Disturbance Is Common Among Servicemembers and Veterans of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom

期刊

PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 209-219

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/a0034958

关键词

veterans; military service; sleep; insomnia; nightmares; PTSD

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sleep routines that develop as an adaptation or reaction to deployment can persist upon return stateside. Sleep problems intensify and are intensified by psychiatric distress. This research presents the findings of a comprehensive survey of sleep impairment in relation to demographic data, military history, combat exposure, and mental illness symptoms among a general sample of 375 servicemembers and veterans of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) at a wide range of times postdeployment. Sleep impairment was assessed with the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and the Addendum for PTSD. Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety symptoms were evaluated, with the PTSD Checklist-Military, the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7. Sleep problems were common across the sample, with 45.4% of participants reporting sleep onset greater than 30 minutes, 21.4% typically achieving less than 4.5 hours of total sleep time, and 56% reporting being awake in bed more than 15% of the night. Global PSQI scores classified 89% of the sample as poor sleepers. Sleep problems were more severe among servicemembers with less education, from lower ranks (E1-E3), with greater combat exposure, and greater depression, anxiety, and PTSD symptoms. These findings suggest the need for routine screening of sleep problems among veterans and increased professional training in interventions for insomnia and nightmares. For individuals experiencing sleep problems with concurrent psychiatric symptoms, addressing sleep concerns may be one less-stigmatizing way to transition servicemembers and veterans into needed mental health services.

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