Comparison of longitudinal diary and actigraphy-assessed sleep in pregnant women.
Comparison of longitudinal diary and actigraphy-assessed sleep in pregnant women.
复制标题
孕妇纵向日记和体动记录仪评估睡眠的比较。
DOI：
10.1016/j.sleep.2021.09.015
复制
发表时间：
2021
期刊：
影响因子：
4.8
通讯作者：
Feliciano,Leilani
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Okun,MicheleL;Kohl,Vanessa;Feliciano,Leilani
研究目标采用多种方法来评估孕妇的睡眠，包括自我报告、睡眠日记和体动记录仪。不幸的是，数据常常是矛盾的，而且解释也常常不一致。目前的目的是比较怀孕早期纵向收集的孕妇的主观和客观睡眠数据。方法在对 104 名孕妇的二次分析中，通过日记和体动记录仪在三个不同的时间点（10-12 周、14-16 周和 18-20 周）收集 14 天的睡眠数据。睡眠变量包括入睡后醒来 (WASO)、睡眠效率 (SE)、就寝/熄灯、入睡潜伏期 (SL) 和总睡眠持续时间 (TST)。重复测量方差分析比较了跨时间和数据收集方法的每个睡眠变量，同时控制奇偶性和白天小睡。结果仅针对 WASO 研究的睡眠成分数据收集方法存在显着差异，F(1, 98) = 147.20，p< 0.001； SE,F(1, 98) = 129.41,p< 0.001);就寝时间/熄灯，F(1, 103) = 5.33,p< 0.05);和睡眠持续时间，F(1, 104) = 182.75,p< 0.001)。跨时间段的任何变量均未发现显着变化。结论：日记和体动记录仪评估的孕妇睡眠测量之间存在显着差异，这与之前的文献一致。这些数据强调这些方法评估不同的结构。我们认为这些数据可能有助于比较高危女性或患有睡眠障碍的女性。使用多模式方法来识别妊娠期睡眠障碍可能是临床上更有用的选择。
Study objectivesVarious methods are employed to assess sleep in pregnant women, including self-report, sleep diary, and actigraphy. Unfortunately, the data are often contradictory, and interpretations are often inconsistent. The current aims are to compare subjective and objective sleep data in pregnant women collected longitudinally in early pregnancy.MethodsIn this secondary analysis of 104 pregnant women, sleep was collected via diary and actigraphy for 14 days during three separate occasions (10–12 weeks; 14–16 weeks; and 18–20 weeks). Sleep variables included wake after sleep onset (WASO), sleep efficiency (SE), bedtime/lights out, sleep onset latency (SL), and total sleep duration (TST). Repeated measures ANOVAs compared each sleep variable acrossTimeand byMethodof data collection, while controlling for parity and daytime naps.ResultsSignificant differences were noted for only the method of data collection for sleep component studied for WASO,F(1, 98) = 147.20,p< 0.001; SE,F(1, 98) = 129.41,p< 0.001); bedtime/lights out,F(1, 103) = 5.33,p< 0.05); and sleep duration,F(1, 104) = 182.75,p< 0.001). Significant variation was not seen in any variable across time-period. Conclusions: There are substantial discrepancies between diary- and actigraphy-assessed sleep measures in pregnant women which is in alignment with previous literature. These data highlight that these methodologies assess different constructs. We contend that these data may be useful as a reference to compare high-risk women or those with sleep disorders. Using a multi-modal approach to identify sleep disturbance in pregnancy is likely a more clinically useful option.