No abstract

No abstract

Introduction American adults are typically sleep deprived during weekdays and attempt to recover sleep on the weekends. Technological advances in home sleep monitoring have provided the opportunity to analyze sleep patterns on a scale much larger than previously imaginable. This study explores the weekly REM sleep deprivation–recovery cycle in a large U.S. sample. Methods Estimated total sleep time (TST) and REM/TST (R%) were analyzed by a commercially-available home-sleep-monitoring device (Sleeptracker-AI Monitor, Fullpower Technologies, California, USA). The device passively monitors sleep using piezo-electric sensors that register the forces exerted through the mattress. The de-identified data from the devices were analyzed following review and exemption of the study (#57681) from the Stanford University IRB. Data from 07/2020–06/2021, from 101,442 individuals with 14,277,964 recorded nights, were available. The analytic dataset included individuals with at least 300 nights of sleep per year and 26 of 52 nights per each day of the week (excluding nights abutting federal holidays). Results A total of 21,543 individuals (11,095 men, 51±14 years; 9,821 women, 50±15 years; 627 unspecified genders) and 6,850,717 recorded nights met the inclusion criteria. There is a stepwise increase in R% from Sunday night to Friday night and a decrease back to Sunday night, following a cycle of weekday sleep deprivation and weekend recovery. The means and standard deviations (across individuals’ averages) of TST in hours and R% for each night were: Sunday (TST*:7.21±0.885, R%*:24.20±3.09), Monday (TST*:7.18±0.853, R%*:24.56±3.10), Tuesday (TST*:7.16±0.847, R%*:24.67±3.13), Wednesday (TST*:7.16±0.845, R%*:24.80±3.15), Thursday (TST*:7.18±0.845, R%*:24.87±3.15), Friday (TST*:7.51±0.904, R%*:25.05±3.15), and Saturday (TST*:7.59±0.897, R%*:24.83±3.12). Each statistic, when compared with the previous night of the week, was significant (p < 0.05/7, Bonferroni corrected) by paired t-test (denoted by an asterisk). Conclusion The use of advanced technology to estimate sleep-wake patterns in a large sample permits the validation of a repetitive REM sleep deprivation–recovery cycle. Individuals are, on average, partially sleep deprived starting Sunday night, which leads to a progressive REM sleep rebound that transitions into a REM recovery cycle on Friday and Saturday nights. Further work will focus on studying this cycle within different groups (e.g., age, gender), across seasons, and including other sleep parameters. Support (If Any)

Introduction Sharing the bed with a partner is common among adults and is likely to impact sleep in multiple ways. However, polysomnograms are performed without a bed partner and objective data on co-sleeping couples are extremely rare. This study aimed to investigate the effects of a bed partner's presence on objective sleep parameters. Methods Sleep data from 5190 users (43% female, 14% unspecified gender, mean age 47) and their bed partners were collected through a commercially-available home sleep monitoring device (Sleeptracker-AI Monitor, Fullpower Technologies, California, USA). The device passively monitors sleep using piezo-electric sensors that register the forces exerted through the mattress. Subjects with at least 10 weekday sleep recordings with a bed partner present for at least an hour, and at least 10 weekday sleep recordings without a bed partner present at all during the period from 08/2021 to 11/2021 were included. Estimated total sleep time (TST), wake after sleep onset (WASO), sleep efficiency (SE), and light, deep, and REM sleep were analyzed comparing between the nights with and without a bed partner. Results The mean (standard deviation) across subject averages of estimated TST (min), WASO (min), SE (%), and light, deep and REM sleep (min) with a bed partner were: TST 417.2(44.5), WASO 47.2(24.9), SE 89.5(6.4), light sleep 255.4(34.2), deep sleep 56.7(11.9) and REM sleep 105.2(17.5) and without a bed partner were: TST 414.7(49.2)-*, WASO 40.7(20.5)-*, SE 90.7(5.8)+*, light sleep 243.6(38.0)-*, deep sleep 62.9(12.9)+* and REM sleep 108.2(19.0)+*; a (+) indicates an increase and (-) a decrease in the sleep parameter between nights with and without a bed partner, and (*) signifies p < 0.05 by paired t-test. Conclusion When the bed partner is absent, an individual’s sleep architecture shows on average a higher sleep efficiency, with less awake time but also less total sleep; more minutes spent in deep and REM sleep, and less in light sleep. This suggests a less interrupted night, perhaps due to fewer disruptions from the partner, where the individual has enough continuity in his/her sleep to transition to deeper stages. Further work will add the effect of a bedpartner in AHI and snoring. Support (If Any)

Purpose Following research into the application of Electronic Monitoring (EM), Criminal Justice Order (2016) no. 954 was published, which introduced EM for offenders leaving custody in England and Wales (Ministry of Justice, 2016). EM was later extended to include those subjected to release on temporary licence (ROTL). The purpose of this study is to be the first, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, to evaluate a pilot project using EM during the ROTL process. The outcome allowed for recommendations to be made regarding the continued use of EM within the open prison estate. Design/methodology/approach This is a qualitative research project involving semi-structured interviews with staff and residents. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis which resulted in exploration of 4 themes and 11 sub-themes and recommendations for future research/practice. Findings Results demonstrated that both staff and residents evaluated the use of EM as helpful with regard to evidencing compliance with ROTL conditions. In addition, staff also found it helpful for providing additional reassurance to victims and providing evidence for ROTL breaches. Practical implications To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this was the first qualitative evaluation of EM relating to the ROTL process. The evaluation improves understanding of the value of EM for policymakers and the Ministry of Justice, especially in terms of the ROTL process. The recommendations made in this paper evidence the value of EM use in the future. Originality/value This evaluation supports continued use of EM and its integration into policy and procedures for residents subject to temporary licence. This paper concluded that consistent and reliable use of EM may contribute to victim reassurance and reduce recidivism of residents during ROTL, subsequently increasing the public’s perception of safety.