Diane S Lauderdale1, Jen-Hao Chen2, Lianne M Kurina3, Linda J Waite4, Ronald A Thisted1. 1. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 2. Department of Health Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA. 3. Department of General Medical Disciplines, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA. 4. Department of Sociology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cohort studies have found that short and long sleep are both associated with worse outcomes, compared with intermediate sleep times. While demonstrated biological mechanisms could explain health effects for short sleep, long-sleep risk is puzzling. Most studies reporting the U shape use a single question about sleep duration, a measurement method that does not correlate highly with objectively measured sleep. We hypothesised that the U shape, especially the poor outcomes for long sleepers, may be an artefact of how sleep is measured. METHODS: We examined the cross-sectional prevalence of fair/poor health by sleep hour categories (≤ 6, ≤ 7, ≤ 8, ≤ 9, > 9 h) in a national US sample of adults aged 62-90 that included several types of sleep measures (n = 727). Survey measures were: a single question; usual bedtimes and waking times; and a 3-day sleep log. Actigraphy measures were the sleep interval and total sleep time. Fair/poor health was regressed on sleep hour categories adjusted for demographics, with tests for both linear trend and U shape. RESULTS: Adjusted OR of fair/poor health across sleep hour categories from the single question were 4.6, 2.2, referent (8 h), 1.8 and 6.9. There was high prevalence of fair/poor health for ≤ 6 h for all sleep measures, but the long-sleep effect was absent for sleep logs and actigraphy measures. CONCLUSIONS: Associations between long sleep and poor health may be specific to studies measuring sleep with survey questions. As cohorts with actigraphy mature, our understanding of how sleep affects health may change. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
BACKGROUND: Cohort studies have found that short and long sleep are both associated with worse outcomes, compared with intermediate sleep times. While demonstrated biological mechanisms could explain health effects for short sleep, long-sleep risk is puzzling. Most studies reporting the U shape use a single question about sleep duration, a measurement method that does not correlate highly with objectively measured sleep. We hypothesised that the U shape, especially the poor outcomes for long sleepers, may be an artefact of how sleep is measured. METHODS: We examined the cross-sectional prevalence of fair/poor health by sleep hour categories (≤ 6, ≤ 7, ≤ 8, ≤ 9, > 9 h) in a national US sample of adults aged 62-90 that included several types of sleep measures (n = 727). Survey measures were: a single question; usual bedtimes and waking times; and a 3-day sleep log. Actigraphy measures were the sleep interval and total sleep time. Fair/poor health was regressed on sleep hour categories adjusted for demographics, with tests for both linear trend and U shape. RESULTS: Adjusted OR of fair/poor health across sleep hour categories from the single question were 4.6, 2.2, referent (8 h), 1.8 and 6.9. There was high prevalence of fair/poor health for ≤ 6 h for all sleep measures, but the long-sleep effect was absent for sleep logs and actigraphy measures. CONCLUSIONS: Associations between long sleep and poor health may be specific to studies measuring sleep with survey questions. As cohorts with actigraphy mature, our understanding of how sleep affects health may change. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Authors: Nathaniel F Watson; M Safwan Badr; Gregory Belenky; Donald L Bliwise; Orfeu M Buxton; Daniel Buysse; David F Dinges; James Gangwisch; Michael A Grandner; Clete Kushida; Raman K Malhotra; Jennifer L Martin; Sanjay R Patel; Stuart F Quan; Esra Tasali Journal: Sleep Date: 2015-06-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Sutapa Mukherjee; Sanjay R Patel; Stefanos N Kales; Najib T Ayas; Kingman P Strohl; David Gozal; Atul Malhotra Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-06-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Sonia Ancoli-Israel; Roger Cole; Cathy Alessi; Mark Chambers; William Moorcroft; Charles P Pollak Journal: Sleep Date: 2003-05-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Janet M Mullington; Monika Haack; Maria Toth; Jorge M Serrador; Hans K Meier-Ewert Journal: Prog Cardiovasc Dis Date: 2009 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 8.194
Authors: Yue Leng; Francesco P Cappuccio; Nick W J Wainwright; Paul G Surtees; Robert Luben; Carol Brayne; Kay-Tee Khaw Journal: Neurology Date: 2015-02-25 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Galit Levi Dunietz; Erica C Jansen; Shelley Hershner; Louise M O'Brien; Karen E Peterson; Ana Baylin Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: John P K Bernstein; Katherine Dorociak; Nora Mattek; Mira Leese; Chelsea Trapp; Zachary Beattie; Jeffrey Kaye; Adriana Hughes Journal: Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn Date: 2021-04-18