4.5 Article

Sleep differences in the UK between 1974 and 2015: Insights from detailed time diaries

Journal

JOURNAL OF SLEEP RESEARCH
Volume 28, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jsr.12753

Keywords

change; deprivation; jetlag; sleep; time use

Funding

  1. H2020 European Research Council [339703]
  2. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/L011662/1]
  3. Wellcome Trust Strategic Award [098461/Z/12/Z]
  4. Wellcome Trust
  5. European Research Council
  6. Department of Health
  7. ESRC [ES/L011662/1, ES/S010149/1, ES/F037937/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It is often stated that sleep deprivation is on the rise, with work suggested as a main cause. However, the evidence for increasing sleep deprivation comes from surveys using habitual sleep questions. An alternative source of information regarding sleep behaviour is time-use studies. This paper investigates changes in sleep time in the UK using the two British time-use studies that allow measuring time in bed not asleep separately from actual sleep time. Based upon the studies presented here, people in the UK sleep today 43 min more than they did in the 1970s because they go to bed earlier (similar to 30 min) and they wake up later (similar to 15 min). The change in sleep duration is driven by night sleep and it is homogeneously distributed across the week. The former results apply to men and women alike, and to individuals of all ages and employment status, including employed individuals, the presumed major victims of the sleep deprivation epidemic and the 24/7 society. In fact, employed individuals have experienced a reduction in short sleeping of almost 4 percentage points, from 14.9% to 11.0%. There has also been a reduction of 15 percentage points in the amount of conflict between workers work time and their sleep time, as measured by the proportion of workers that do some work within their ideal sleep window (as defined by their own chronotype).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available