Normative data on the diurnal pattern of the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale ratings and its relation to age, sex, work, stress, sleep quality and sickness absence/illness in a large sample of daytime workers
Normative data on the diurnal pattern of the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale ratings and its relation to age, sex, work, stress, sleep quality and sickness absence/illness in a large sample of daytime workers
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/jsr.12528
复制
发表时间：
2017-10-01
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
Kecklund, Goran
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Akerstedt, Torbjorn;Hallvig, David;Kecklund, Goran
自我评定的困倦程度是对睡眠不足、一天中的时间和工作安排的反应。然而，缺乏一个标准参考来显示正常工作日与休息日的昼夜模式，以及根据压力、睡眠质量、性别、年龄和生病列出的差异。本研究试图为卡罗林斯卡嗜睡量表提供这样的数据。参与者为431名在中型公共服务单位工作的个人。昏昏欲睡(卡罗琳斯卡嗜睡量表，1-9级)被评为工作日和休息日每天6次(>；90.000分)。结果表明，昼夜节律明显，早间(07：00)和晚间(22：00)有较高值(4.5)，10：0016：00有较低值(3-4)。女性的Karolinska嗜睡量表数值(0.5个单位)明显高于男性，年轻人(0.3个单位)、有压力的人(比低压力组高1.3个单位)和睡眠质量差的人(比睡眠质量好的人高1.0个单位)也是如此。休息日减少了嗜睡(0.7个单位)，而生病与嗜睡增加(0.8个单位)有关。对工作周的平均困倦进行多元回归分析，得出平均白天压力、平均睡眠质量、年龄和性别作为预测因素(而不是睡眠时间)。睡眠质量的改善是休息日睡意减少的原因，但压力的减少是第二个因素。在一周7天的纵向混合模型回归分析中也得到了类似的结果。卡罗林斯卡嗜睡量表风险等级(8+9)的评分百分比为6.6%，但大多数评分是在22：00获得的。研究得出结论，嗜睡率与一天中的时间、睡眠质量、压力、工作日/休息日、生病、年龄和性别密切相关。
Self-rated sleepiness responds to sleep loss, time of day and work schedules. There is, however, a lack of a normative reference showing the diurnal pattern during a normal working day, compared with a day off, as well as differences depending on stress, sleep quality, sex, age and being sick listed. The present study sought to provide such data for the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale. Participants were 431 individuals working in medium-sized public service units. Sleepiness (Karolinska Sleepiness Scale, scale 1-9) was rated at six times a day for a working week and 2 days off (>90.000 ratings). The results show a clear circadian pattern, with high values during the morning (4.5 at 07:00 hours) and evening (6.0 at 22:00 hours), and with low values (3-4) during the 10:0016: 00 hours span. Women had significantly higher (0.5 units) Karolinska Sleepiness Scale values than men, as did younger individuals (0.3 units), those with stress (1.3 units above the low-stress group) and those with poor sleep quality (1.0 units above those with qood sleep quality). Days off showed reduced sleepiness (0.7 units), while being sick listed was associated with an increased sleepiness (0.8 units). Multiple regression analysis of mean sleepiness during the working week yielded mean daytime stress, mean sleep quality, age, and sex as predictors (not sleep duration). Improved sleep quality accounted for the reduced sleepiness during days off, but reduced stress was a second factor. Similar results were obtained in a longitudinal mixed-model regression analysis across the 7 days of the week. The percentage of ratings at Karolinska Sleepiness Scale risk levels (8 + 9) was 6.6%, but most of these were obtained at 22:00 hours. It was concluded that sleepiness ratings are strongly associated with time of day, sleep quality, stress, work day/day off, being ill, age, and sex.