4.7 Article

Sleep Problems and Associated Daytime Fatigue in Community-Dwelling Older Individuals

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/gerona/63.10.1069

Keywords

Sleep; Fatigue; Aging

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [N01-AG-6-2101, 2103, 2106, AG000181-16, T32]
  2. National Institute on Aging (NIA) [AG08415]
  3. National Cancer Institute [CA85264, CA112035]
  4. University of California [111B-0034]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Reported fatigue has been identified as a component of frailty. The contribution of nighttime sleep quality (duration and complaints) to fatigue symptoms in community-dwelling older adults has not been evaluated. Methods. We studied 2264 men and women, aged 75-84 years (mean 77.5 years; standard deviation [SD] 2.9). participating in the Year 5 (2001-2002) clinic visit of the Health, Aging, and Body Composition (Health ABC) study. Fatigue was determined using a subscale of the Modified Piper Fatigue Scale (0-50; higher score indicating higher fatigue). Hours of sleep per night, trouble falling asleep, waking up during the night, and waking up too early in the morning were assessed using interviewer-administered questionnaires. Results. The average fatigue score was 17.7 (SD 8.4). In multivariate models, women had a 3.8% higher fatigue score than men did. Individuals who slept <= 6 hours/night had a 4.3% higher fatigue score than did those who slept 7 hours/ night. Individuals with complaints of awakening too early in the morning had a 5.5% higher fatigue score than did those without these complaints. These associations remained significant after multivariate adjustment for multiple medical conditions. Conclusion. The association between self-reported short sleep duration (<= 6 hours), and waking up too early and fatigue symptoms suggests that better and more effective management of sleep behaviors may help reduce fatigue in older adults.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available