| Literature DB >> 27108717 |
Suzet Tanya Lereya1, Catherine Winsper2, Nicole K Y Tang1, Dieter Wolke3.
Abstract
Sleep disorders, such as insomnia and nightmares, are commonly associated with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) in adulthood. Whether nightmares and sleep-onset and maintenance problems predate BPD symptoms earlier in development is unknown. We addressed this gap in the literature using data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC). Participants included 6050 adolescents (51.4 % female) who completed the UK Childhood Interview for DSM-IV BPD at 11 to 12 years of age. Nightmares and sleep onset and maintenance problems were prospectively assessed via mother report when children were 2.5, 3.5, 4.8 and 6.8 years of age. Psychopathological (i.e., emotional temperament; psychiatric diagnoses; and emotional and behavioural problems) and psychosocial (i.e., abuse, maladaptive parenting, and family adversity) confounders were assessed via mother report. In logistic regressions, persistent nightmares (i.e., regular nightmares at 3 or more time-points) were significantly associated with BPD symptoms following adjustment for sleep onset and maintenance problems and all confounders (Adjusted Odds Ratio = 1.62; 95 % Confidence Interval = 1.12 to 2.32). Persistent sleep onset and maintenance problems were not significantly associated with BPD symptoms. In path analysis controlling for all associations between confounders, persistent nightmares independently predicted BPD symptoms (Probit co-efficient [β] = 0.08, p = 0.013). Emotional and behavioural problems significantly mediated the association between nightmares and BPD (β =0.016, p < 0.001), while nightmares significantly mediated associations between emotional temperament (β = 0.001, p = 0.018), abuse (β = 0.015, p = 0.018), maladaptive parenting (β = 0.002, p = 0.021) and subsequent BPD. These findings tentatively support that childhood nightmares may potentially increase the risk of BPD symptoms in early adolescence via a number of aetiological pathways. If replicated, the current findings could have important implications for early intervention, and assist clinicians in the identification of children at risk of developing BPD.Entities:
Keywords: ALSPAC; Adolescence; BPD; Borderline personality disorder; Childhood; Nightmares; Sleep
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 27108717 PMCID: PMC5219009 DOI: 10.1007/s10802-016-0158-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Abnorm Child Psychol ISSN: 0091-0627
Fig. 1Flow chart of participant numbers from pregnancy to BPD assessment at 11 to 12 years. a Adjusted numbers reported in Table 3
Associations between childhood sleep problems and BPD symptoms at 11 to 12 years (unadjusted and adjusted)
| Model A | Model B | Model C | |
|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95 % CI) | OR (95 % CI) | OR (95 % CI) | |
| Nightmares | ( | ( | ( |
| None | [Reference] | [Reference] | [Reference] |
| 1 time point | 1.23 (0.89–1.70) | 1.28 (0.86–1.91) | 1.27 (0.84–1.93) |
| 2 time points | 1.28 (0.91–1.79) | 1.21 (0.79–1.84) | 1.22 (0.79–1.89) |
| 3 + time points |
|
|
|
| Sleep maintenance | ( | ( | ( |
| None | [Reference] | [Reference] | [Reference] |
| 1 time point | 1.20 (0.90–1.61) | 1.15 (0.82–1.61) | 1.09 (0.77–1.54) |
| 2 time points | 1.39 (0.92–2.10) | 1.25 (0.77–2.03) | 1.15 (0.70–1.87) |
| 3 + time points | 1.27 (0.63–2.53) | 1.19 (0.53–2.66) | 1.09 (0.49–2.46) |
| Sleep onset problems | ( | ( | ( |
| None | [Reference] | [Reference] | [Reference] |
| 1 time point | 1.05 (0.77–1.44) | 1.05 (0.72–1.52) | 1.01 (0.69–1.48) |
| 2 time points | 0.95 (0.68–1.32) | 0.79 (0.53–1.19) | 0.73 (0.48–1.15) |
| 3 + time points |
| 1.18 (0.82–1.70) | 1.06 (0.72–1.54) |
Boldface type indicates significant associations at p < 0.05. Model A = Crude Analysis; Model B = Analysis controlling for sex, emotional temperament at 2 years, Family Adversity Index (FAI; pregnancy, 0–2 & 2–4 years), physical or sexual abuse at 2.5, 3.5, 4.8, or 6.8 years, preschool maladaptive parenting, Development and Well-Being Assessment (DAWBA) at 7 years, and emotional and behavioural problems assessed with the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) at 9.5 and 11.7 years; Model C = For nightmares: additionally controlling for preschool and school sleep onset problems (assessed at 2.5, 3.5, 4.8, or 6.8 years) and persistent sleep maintenance problems; for sleep onset problems: additionally controlling for nightmares and sleep maintenance problems; for sleep maintenance problems additionally controlling for nightmares and sleep onset problems
BPD Borderline personality disorder, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval
Drop-out analysis comparing those not available for the BPD interview to those who completed the BPD interview
| Characteristic | BPD interview not available | BPD interview available | BPD interview not available versus available |
|---|---|---|---|
| N (%) | N (%) | OR (95 % CI) | |
| Gender | |||
| Male | 4282 (54) | 2938 (48.6) | [reference] |
| Female | 3644 (46) | 3112 (51.4) |
|
| Ethnicity | |||
| White | 5933 (93.8) | 5541 (96.2) | [reference] |
| Black and minority ethnic | 393 (6.2) | 216 (3.8) |
|
| Birth weight | |||
| > 2499 g | 7344 (93.9) | 5707 (95.4) | [reference] |
| < 2500 g | 474 (6.1) | 273 (4.6) |
|
| Marital status | |||
| Single | 2186 (30.5) | 1095 (18.5) | [reference] |
| Married | 4985 (69.5) | 4821 (81.5) |
|
| Home ownership | |||
| Mortgage | 4658 (65) | 4901 (83.6) | [reference] |
| Rent | 2510 (35) | 958 (16.4) |
|
| Education of mother | |||
| Below O level | 2466 (37.5) | 1262 (21.6) | [reference] |
| O level or above | 4113 (62.5) | 4577 (78.4) |
|
| Social class | |||
| Non-manual | 2714 (46) | 3152 (56.5) | [reference] |
| Manual | 3189 (54) | 2430 (43.5) |
|
| Family adversity (M, SD) | 4.35 (4.28) | 3.76 (3.87) |
|
Boldface indicates significant association at p < 0.05
OR Odds Ratio, CI Confidence Intervals, M mean, SD standard deviation
Frequency of nightmares, and sleep-onset and maintenance problems across time-points
| Sleep problem | No time-points | 1 time-point | 2 time-points | 3+ time-points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nightmaresa | 1403 (25.3 %) | 1169 (21.1 %) | 943 (17 %) | 2029 (36.6 %) |
| Sleep onseta | 1159 (21.8 %) | 1413 (26.6 %) | 1221 (23 %) | 1525 (28.7 %) |
| Sleep maintenancea | 4135 (78.3 %) | 737 (14 %) | 297 (5.6 %) | 109 (2.1 %) |
aDefined by mother as “regular” problem
Fig. 2Path diagram showing the main significant direct associations in the final model. Pathways to emotional/behavioural problems at 11 to 12 not shown for clarity; * = significant at p < 0.05; ** = significant at p < 0.001; Results presented in probit co-efficients; Probit co-efficients represent the change in the probability of “caseness” associated with a unit change in the independent variable, thus it is important to keep the scale of the predictor in mind when interpreting probit coefficients i.e., one would expect probit values to be larger for dichotomous predictors, which represent the change from ‘no caseness’ (i.e., no abuse) to ‘caseness’ (i.e., abuse) rather than a single value on a continuous scale (i.e., emotional/behavioural problems)
Unstandardised probit coefficients (β) for the indirect pathways between early risk factors, persistent nightmares, and BPD symptoms outcome
| Risk factors | To BPD symptoms outcome at 11 to 12 years | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Associations via Persistent Nightmares at 2.5 to 6.8 yrs | Associations via emotional/behavioural problems at 9.5 years | |||||
| β | SE |
| Β | SE |
| |
| Sex | 0.004 | 0.003 | 0.197 |
|
|
|
| Emotional temperament |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Family adversity | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.062 |
|
|
|
| Abuse |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Maladaptive parenting |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Persistent nightmares | N/A | N/A | N/A |
|
|
|
B probit coefficient, SE standard error, P probability
aNegative figure indicates male sex as variable coded as 1 = male, 2 = female; Boldface indicates significant associations; Probit co-efficients represent the change in the probability of “caseness” associated with a unit change in the independent variable, thus it is important to keep the scale of the predictor in mind when interpreting probit coefficients i.e., one would expect probit values to be larger for dichotomous predictors, which represent the change from ‘no caseness’ (i.e., no abuse) to ‘caseness’ (i.e., abuse) rather than a single value on a continuous scale (i.e., emotional temperament)