Diana M Taibi1, Carol A Landis, Michael V Vitiello. 1. Departments of Biobehavioral Nursing & Health Systems, University of Washington, School of Nursing, Seattle, WA 98195-7262, USA. dmtaibi@uw.edu
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: The objective of this secondary analysis was to evaluate concurrent validity of actigraphy and polysomnography (PSG) in older women with insomnia. METHODS: Concurrent validity of actigraphy and PSG was examined through (1) comparison of sleep outcomes from each recording method; (2) calculation of sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and predictive values from epoch-by-epoch data; and (3) statistical and graphical exploration of the relationship between sleep disturbance severity and concordance of actigraphy and PSG. Subjects were 16 community-dwelling older women (mean age 69.4 ± 8.1) with insomnia who underwent 8 nights of concurrent actigraphy and PSG. RESULTS: Sleep efficiency reflected much greater sleep disturbance on PSG (66.9%) than actigraphy (84.4%). Based on generalized linear models, the parameter estimates for agreement between actigraphy and PSG were statistically significant (p < 0.05) for total sleep time and sleep latency, verged on significance for WASO (p = 0.052), but was not significant for sleep efficiency (p = 0.20). Epoch-by-epoch analysis showed high sensitivity (96.1%), low specificity (36.4%), and modest values on agreement (75.4%) and predictive values of sleep (74.7%) and wake (80.2%). Generalized linear models showed that overall accuracy of actigraphy declined as sleep efficiency declined (unstandardized Beta = 0.741, p < 0.001). Based on this model, sleep efficiency of 73% was the point at which accuracy declined below an acceptable accuracy value of 80%. CONCLUSIONS: Actigraphy offers a relatively inexpensive and unobtrusive method for measuring sleep, but it appears to underestimate sleep disturbance, particularly at sleep efficiency levels below 73%, in older women with insomnia.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: The objective of this secondary analysis was to evaluate concurrent validity of actigraphy and polysomnography (PSG) in older women with insomnia. METHODS: Concurrent validity of actigraphy and PSG was examined through (1) comparison of sleep outcomes from each recording method; (2) calculation of sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and predictive values from epoch-by-epoch data; and (3) statistical and graphical exploration of the relationship between sleep disturbance severity and concordance of actigraphy and PSG. Subjects were 16 community-dwelling older women (mean age 69.4 ± 8.1) with insomnia who underwent 8 nights of concurrent actigraphy and PSG. RESULTS: Sleep efficiency reflected much greater sleep disturbance on PSG (66.9%) than actigraphy (84.4%). Based on generalized linear models, the parameter estimates for agreement between actigraphy and PSG were statistically significant (p < 0.05) for total sleep time and sleep latency, verged on significance for WASO (p = 0.052), but was not significant for sleep efficiency (p = 0.20). Epoch-by-epoch analysis showed high sensitivity (96.1%), low specificity (36.4%), and modest values on agreement (75.4%) and predictive values of sleep (74.7%) and wake (80.2%). Generalized linear models showed that overall accuracy of actigraphy declined as sleep efficiency declined (unstandardized Beta = 0.741, p < 0.001). Based on this model, sleep efficiency of 73% was the point at which accuracy declined below an acceptable accuracy value of 80%. CONCLUSIONS: Actigraphy offers a relatively inexpensive and unobtrusive method for measuring sleep, but it appears to underestimate sleep disturbance, particularly at sleep efficiency levels below 73%, in older women with insomnia.
Entities:
Keywords:
Actigraphy; aging; insomnia; sleep; sleep initiation and maintenance disorders
Authors: T Hori; Y Sugita; E Koga; S Shirakawa; K Inoue; S Uchida; H Kuwahara; M Kousaka; T Kobayashi; Y Tsuji; M Terashima; K Fukuda; N Fukuda Journal: Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 5.188
Authors: Miguel Marino; Yi Li; Michael N Rueschman; J W Winkelman; J M Ellenbogen; J M Solet; Hilary Dulin; Lisa F Berkman; Orfeu M Buxton Journal: Sleep Date: 2013-11-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Alexander J Boe; Lori L McGee Koch; Megan K O'Brien; Nicholas Shawen; John A Rogers; Richard L Lieber; Kathryn J Reid; Phyllis C Zee; Arun Jayaraman Journal: NPJ Digit Med Date: 2019-12-20
Authors: N F Watson; D Buchwald; J J Delrow; W A Altemeier; M V Vitiello; A I Pack; M Bamshad; C Noonan; S A Gharib Journal: Sleep Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Joanna E Wrede; Jonas Mengel-From; Dedra Buchwald; Michael V Vitiello; Michael Bamshad; Carolyn Noonan; Lene Christiansen; Kaare Christensen; Nathaniel F Watson Journal: Sleep Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Diana Taibi Buchanan; Kevin Cain; Margaret Heitkemper; Robert Burr; Michael V Vitiello; Jasmine Zia; Monica Jarrett Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2014-09-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Miranda V McPhillips; Victoria V Dickson; Pamela Z Cacchione; Junxin Li; Nalaka Gooneratne; Barbara Riegel Journal: Clin Nurs Res Date: 2019-05-18 Impact factor: 2.075