Monica L Wang1, Brooke A Libby2, Tiffany A Moore Simas3, Molly E Waring4. 1. Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA. 2. Department of Allied Health Sciences and UConn Center for mHealth and Social Media, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. 3. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Massachusetts Medical School/UMass Memorial Health Care, Worcester, MA; Department of Pediatrics, University of Massachusetts Medical School/UMass Memorial Health Care, Worcester, MA; Department of Psychiatry, University of Massachusetts Medical School/UMass Memorial Health Care, Worcester, MA; Department of Population & Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School/UMass Memorial Health Care, Worcester, MA. 4. Department of Allied Health Sciences and UConn Center for mHealth and Social Media, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT; Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Massachusetts Medical School/UMass Memorial Health Care, Worcester, MA; Department of Population & Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School/UMass Memorial Health Care, Worcester, MA. Electronic address: molly.waring@uconn.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption, sleep duration, and quality during pregnancy. METHODS: Pregnant women completed 3 24-hour dietary recalls and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. Logistic regression models estimated odds of short sleep duration (< 7 h/night) and poor sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index score > 5) by SSB consumption (servings/d averaged across 3 days). RESULTS: Participants (n = 108) were a median age of 30 years old (interquartile range [IQR], 26-33) and at 23.9 weeks gestation (IQR, 18.9-30.6). Participants consumed a median of 0.4 servings of SSBs per day on average (IQR, 0-1.1; range, 0-4.6). Fifty-two percent reported poor quality sleep and 38% short sleep. Each additional serving of SSB was associated with higher odds of short sleep (adjusted odds ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-2.5) and poor sleep quality (adjusted odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-3.6). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: SSB consumption may be a modifiable risk factor for short/poor sleep during pregnancy. Longitudinal research is needed to explore the interplay between SSB consumption and sleep.
OBJECTIVE: To examine sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption, sleep duration, and quality during pregnancy. METHODS: Pregnant women completed 3 24-hour dietary recalls and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. Logistic regression models estimated odds of short sleep duration (< 7 h/night) and poor sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index score > 5) by SSB consumption (servings/d averaged across 3 days). RESULTS: Participants (n = 108) were a median age of 30 years old (interquartile range [IQR], 26-33) and at 23.9 weeks gestation (IQR, 18.9-30.6). Participants consumed a median of 0.4 servings of SSBs per day on average (IQR, 0-1.1; range, 0-4.6). Fifty-two percent reported poor quality sleep and 38% short sleep. Each additional serving of SSB was associated with higher odds of short sleep (adjusted odds ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-2.5) and poor sleep quality (adjusted odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-3.6). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: SSB consumption may be a modifiable risk factor for short/poor sleep during pregnancy. Longitudinal research is needed to explore the interplay between SSB consumption and sleep.
Authors: Arlet V Nedeltcheva; Jennifer M Kilkus; Jacqueline Imperial; Kristen Kasza; Dale A Schoeller; Plamen D Penev Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2008-12-03 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Rachel P Ogilvie; Pamela L Lutsey; Rachel Widome; Melissa N Laska; Nicole Larson; Dianne Neumark-Sztainer Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2017-12-06 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Yunsheng Ma; Barbara C Olendzki; Sherry L Pagoto; Thomas G Hurley; Robert P Magner; Ira S Ockene; Kristin L Schneider; Philip A Merriam; James R Hébert Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 3.797