Jaime M Hughes1, Yeonsu Song2,3, Constance H Fung2,3, Joseph M Dzierzewski4, Michael N Mitchell2, Stella Jouldjian2, Karen R Josephson2, Cathy A Alessi2,3, Jennifer L Martin2,3. 1. a Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care , Durham VA Medical Center , Durham , North Carolina , USA. 2. b Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center , VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System , Los Angeles , California , USA. 3. c David Geffen School of Medicine , University of California at Los Angeles , Los Angeles , California , USA. 4. d Department of Psychology , Virginia Commonwealth University , Richmond , Virginia , USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study compared subjective (questionnaire) and objective (actigraphy) sleep assessments, and examined agreement between these methods, in vulnerable older adults participating in a Veterans Administration Adult Day Health Care (ADHC) program. METHODS:59 ADHC participants (95% male, meanage = 78 years) completed sleep questionnaires and 72 continuous hours of wrist actigraphy. Linear regression was used to examine agreement between methods and explore discrepancies in subjective/objective measures. RESULTS:Disturbed sleep was common, yet there was no agreement between subjective and objective sleep assessment methods. Compared with objective measures, one-half of participants reported worse sleep efficiency (SE) on questionnaires while one-quarter over-estimated SE. Participants reporting worse pain had a greater discrepancy between subjective and objective SE. CONCLUSIONS:Vulnerable older adults demonstrated unique patterns of reporting sleep quality when comparing subjective and objective methods. Additional research is needed to better understand how vulnerable older adults evaluate sleep problems. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Objective and subjective sleep measures may represent unique and equally important constructs in this population. Clinicians should consider utilizing both objective and subjective sleep measures to identify individuals who may benefit from behavioral sleep treatments, and future research is needed to develop and validate appropriate sleep assessments for vulnerable older adults.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: This study compared subjective (questionnaire) and objective (actigraphy) sleep assessments, and examined agreement between these methods, in vulnerable older adults participating in a Veterans Administration Adult Day Health Care (ADHC) program. METHODS: 59 ADHC participants (95% male, mean age = 78 years) completed sleep questionnaires and 72 continuous hours of wrist actigraphy. Linear regression was used to examine agreement between methods and explore discrepancies in subjective/objective measures. RESULTS: Disturbed sleep was common, yet there was no agreement between subjective and objective sleep assessment methods. Compared with objective measures, one-half of participants reported worse sleep efficiency (SE) on questionnaires while one-quarter over-estimated SE. Participants reporting worse pain had a greater discrepancy between subjective and objective SE. CONCLUSIONS: Vulnerable older adults demonstrated unique patterns of reporting sleep quality when comparing subjective and objective methods. Additional research is needed to better understand how vulnerable older adults evaluate sleep problems. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Objective and subjective sleep measures may represent unique and equally important constructs in this population. Clinicians should consider utilizing both objective and subjective sleep measures to identify individuals who may benefit from behavioral sleep treatments, and future research is needed to develop and validate appropriate sleep assessments for vulnerable older adults.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adult day health care; discrepancy; insomnia; measurement; objective; sleep; subjective
Authors: Christina S McCrae; Meredeth A Rowe; Candece G Tierney; Natalie D Dautovich; Allison L Definis; Joseph P H McNamara Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: Jason C Cole; Sarosh J Motivala; Daniel J Buysse; Michael N Oxman; Myron J Levin; Michael R Irwin Journal: Sleep Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Jeanne E Maglione; Sonia Ancoli-Israel; Katherine W Peters; Misti L Paudel; Kristine Yaffe; Kristine E Ensrud; Katie L Stone Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2012-03-16 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Benjamin F Henwood; Eldin Dzubur; Brian Redline; Danielle R Madden; Sara Semborski; Harmony Rhoades; Suzanne Wenzel Journal: Sleep Health Date: 2019-02-08
Authors: Yin Liu; Elizabeth B Fauth; Daniel J M Fleming; Rebecca Lorenz Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2022-08-11 Impact factor: 4.942
Authors: Jennifer L Guida; Alfonso J Alfini; Lisa Gallicchio; Adam P Spira; Neil E Caporaso; Paige A Green Journal: Sleep Date: 2021-07-09 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Eric J Roseen; Hanna Gerlovin; Alexandra Femia; Jae Cho; Suzanne Bertisch; Susan Redline; Karen J Sherman; Robert Saper Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-10-30 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Dayna A Johnson; Sogol Javaheri; Na Guo; Cora L Champion; Jeraline F Sims; Michelene P Brock; Mario Sims; Sanjay R Patel; David R Williams; James G Wilson; Susan Redline Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 3.864
Authors: Joseph M Dzierzewski; Jennifer L Martin; Constance H Fung; Yeonsu Song; Lavinia Fiorentino; Stella Jouldjian; Juan Carlos Rodriguez; Michael Mitchell; Karen Josephson; Cathy A Alessi Journal: J Sleep Res Date: 2019-01-04 Impact factor: 5.296