4.6 Review

Marital quality and the marital bed: Examining the covariation between relationship quality and sleep

期刊

SLEEP MEDICINE REVIEWS
卷 11, 期 5, 页码 389-404

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.smrv.2007.05.002

关键词

marital quality; close relationships; sleep; sleep disorders

资金

  1. NCATS NIH HHS [UL1 TR000005] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCRR NIH HHS [UL1 RR024153, UL1 RR024153-01, RR024153] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL076852, R24 HL076852-019003, R24 HL076852] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIA NIH HHS [P01 AG020677-01A10003, AG020677, P01 AG020677] Funding Source: Medline
  5. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH024652-27, T32 MH016804, R37 MH024652, T32 MH016804-18, MH024652, R01 MH024652] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The majority of adults steep with a partner, and for a significant proportion of couples, steep problems and relationship problems co-occur, yet there has been little systematic study of the association between close relationships and steep. The association between steep and relationships is likely to be bi-directional and reciprocal-the quality of close relationships influences steep and steep disturbances or steep disorders influence close relationship quality. Therefore, the purpose of the present review is to summarize the extant research on (1) the impact of co-sleeping on bed partner's steep, (2) the impact of steep disturbance or steep disorders on relationship functioning, and (3) the impact of close relationship quality on steep. In addition, we provide a conceptual model of biopsychosocial pathways to account for the covariation between relationship functioning and steep. Recognizing the dyadic nature of steep and incorporating such knowledge into both clinical practice and research in steep medicine may elucidate key mechanisms in the etiology and maintenance of both steep disorders and relationship problems and may ultimately inform novel treatments. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. 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