A scale for the estimation of sleep problems in clinical research

Jenkins, C. David; Stanton, Babette-Ann; Niemcryk, Steve J.; Rose, Robert M.

doi:10.1016/0895-4356(88)90138-2

Cited by 961 publications

(730 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

703

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These symptoms are also included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual's (DSM-IV) definition of insomnia (American Psychiatric Association, 1999; Billiard & Bentley, 2004) as well as the definition articulated by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group (1999). Using the past month as the frame of reference has advantages over more lengthy timeframes in terms of the accuracy of respondents' recall (Buysse, Reynolds, Monk, Berman, & Kupfer, 1989;Jenkins, Stanton, Niemcryk, & Rose, 1988). The measurement of symptoms in days has the additional advantage of minimizing respondent differences in interpreting subjective categories such as "often" and "sometimes" (Partinen & Gislason, 1995).…”

Section: Measurement Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Job stress and poor sleep quality: Data from an American sample of full-time workers

Knudsen

Ducharme

Roman

2007

Social Science & Medicine

207

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the associations between poor quality sleep and health, it is important to consider whether job stressors are related to sleep-related outcomes. Studies from Europe and Japan suggest that these stressors negatively impact sleep, but there are few studies of job stressors and sleep quality that draw upon large representative samples of workers in the USA. Using data collected via telephone interviews from a nationally representative random sample of 1,715 American full-time employees, this research considers three dependent variables of past-month poor sleep quality: number of days the respondent had difficulty initiating sleep, number of days of difficulty maintaining sleep, and number of days of non-restorative sleep. Negative binomial regression was used to estimate a count data model of the associations between the frequency of these three types of poor sleep quality and the job stressors of work overload, role conflict, autonomy, and repetitive tasks, while controlling for socio-demographic characteristics. The average American worker reported 5.3 days of difficulty falling asleep, 6.6 days of trouble staying asleep, and 5.0 days of trouble waking up for work in the past month. Across the three types of poor sleep quality, work overload was positively associated with the frequency of poor sleep quality. Role conflict was positively associated with difficulty initiating sleep and non-restorative sleep. Repetitive tasks were associated with more days of difficulty initiating sleep and maintaining sleep. Job autonomy was negatively associated with nonrestorative sleep. Given that sleep quality is associated with other health outcomes, future research should continue to explore the associations between job-related stressors, sleep quality, and workers' health status.

show abstract

Section: Measurement Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Job stress and poor sleep quality: Data from an American sample of full-time workers

Knudsen

Ducharme

Roman

2007

Social Science & Medicine

207

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mean response for the GHQ questions were used in the analysis. The Jenkins sleep scale was used to assess sleep problems (24). Answers for the scale were given on a 6-point Likert scale (ie, 1=never, 6=almost every night).…”

Section: Measurements Of Predictorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prediction of long-term absence due to sickness in employees: development and validation of a multifactorial risk score in two cohort studies

Airaksinen

Jokela²,

Virtanen

et al. 2018

Scand J Work Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The following baseline characteristics were also collected prior to treatment allocation: age, gender, Chronic Pain Grade (CPG), 11 passive and active coping measured by the Vanderbilt Pain Management Inventory, 12 the Chalder Fatigue Scale, 13 psychological distress (measured by the General Health Questionnaire [GHQ]-12), 14 the Sleep Problem Scale, 15 and the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia. 16 Where single item responses were missing on any of these scales, scores for that item were imputed as the mean score of the other items for that measure.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment expectations but not preference affect outcome in a trial of CBT and exercise for pain

Beasley

Ferguson-Jones

Macfarlane

2017

Canadian Journal of Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Patients’ beliefs and attitudes toward a treatment can affect treatment response. In unblinded trials this can affect outcomes. Aims: The aim of this analysis was to examine the association between treatment preference and expectation and outcome in a trial of pain treatments. Methods: In a randomized trial (ISRCTN67013851) of four treatments for chronic widespread pain, participants were asked which they would prefer and what improvement they expect from each. The proportion of participants reporting positive health outcomes at three time points after treatment were compared between those matched or unmatched with their preference and between those with and without expectation for improvement. Odds ratios were calculated adjusted for baseline characteristics associated with preference and expectation. Results: Four hundred forty-two participants were recruited to the trial (69.5% female). The proportion reporting positive outcomes among participants matched to their preference compared to those unmatched was 33.3% vs. 34.4% at the end of treatment (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44–1.46), 34.4% vs. 29.0% at 3 months (aOR = 1.23, 95% CI, 0.67–2.26), and 34.8% vs. 30.3% at 2 years (aOR = 1.31, 95% CI, 0.70–2.46). The proportion of participants reporting positive outcomes among those expecting improvement compared to those not expecting improvement was 36.6% vs. 15.0% at the end of treatment (aOR = 2.03, 95% CI, 1.07–3.85), 34.1% vs. 13.2% at 3 months (aOR = 2.31, 95% CI, 1.22–4.38), and 32.8% vs. 19.1% at 2 years (aOR = 1.16, 95% CI, 0.67–2.36). Conclusions: Treatment preference had no clear effect on outcomes, but expectation did. These results could inform future approaches to management, and researchers assessing treatments should take into account this expectation effect.

show abstract

A scale for the estimation of sleep problems in clinical research

Cited by 961 publications

References 21 publications

Job stress and poor sleep quality: Data from an American sample of full-time workers

Job stress and poor sleep quality: Data from an American sample of full-time workers

Prediction of long-term absence due to sickness in employees: development and validation of a multifactorial risk score in two cohort studies

Treatment expectations but not preference affect outcome in a trial of CBT and exercise for pain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About