4.6 Article

Gender differences in nighttime sleep and daytime napping as predictors of mortality in older adults: The Rancho Bernardo Study

期刊

SLEEP MEDICINE
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 12-19

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.sleep.2012.06.004

关键词

Elderly; Mortality; Nap duration; Prospective study; Sleep duration

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging [AG07181, AG02857, AG08415]
  2. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [DK31801]
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [R01DK031801] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [R01AG008415, R01AG028507, R37AG007181, R01AG007181] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Many studies suggest optimal sleep duration for survival is 7-8 h/night. We report the gender-specific independent association of all-cause mortality with nighttime sleep and daytime nap duration in older adults who were followed for up to 19 years. Methods: Between 1984 and 1987, 2001 community-dwelling, mostly retired, adults (1112 women), age 60-96 years, answered questions about health, mood, medications, life-style, daytime napping, and nighttime sleep duration. Vital status was confirmed for 96% through July 2001. Results: At baseline, men reported significantly longer nighttime sleep and daytime napping than women. In both men and women, nighttime sleep <6 h was associated with depressed mood and sleep-related medication, and >= 9 h was associated with more alcohol consumption. Napping >= 30 min was associated with prevalent depressed mood, coronary heart disease, and cancer. Of the group, 61% died over the next 19 years, at an average age of 85.6 years. Mortality risk was lowest among those sleeping 7-7.9 h/night in both men and women. Multiple-adjusted analyses showed that increased mortality was associated with nighttime sleep >= 9 h in women (HR 1.51: 95% CI = 1.05-2.18), and with daytime napping >= 30 min in men (HR 1.28: 95% CI, 1.00-1.64). Conclusions: Mechanisms for these differences are unknown. (c) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据