Departamento de Psicobiologia, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Rua Napoleão de Barros, 925, São Paulo, 04024-002, Brazil.
Departamento de Psicobiologia, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Rua Napoleão de Barros, 925, São Paulo, 04024-002, Brazil; Sleep Institute, São Paulo, Brazil.
Sleep Med. 2023 Dec;112:46-52. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2023.09.023. Epub 2023 Oct 2.
Recent evidence supports the idea that sleepiness has several dimensions, comprising psychophysiological phenomena, such as sleep propensity and sleepiness perception. The Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) is among one of the most used sleepiness assessment tools, but recent data suggest that it might not detect problematic impairments in sleep health. More research is warranted investigating sleepiness dimensions with large sample sizes, using both objective and subjective methods of analyzing sleep.
We used data from the Epidemiological Sleep Study (EPISONO), a major study carried out in Brazil using a representative sample of 1042 participants of the general population of Sao Paulo city, who completed questionnaires and underwent type I polysomnography. Sleepiness was measured by the ESS (sleep propensity) and the UNIFESP Sleep Questionnaire, which asked about the frequency of feeling sleepy during the day (sleepiness perception). The participants were distributed into 4 groups in respect of excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) according to the following criteria: 1) having an ESS score >10 (ESS group). 2) feeling sleepy ≥3 times per week (Frequent EDS group). 3) the combined criteria (Combined EDS group). 4) having no evidence of EDS (no EDS group). The UNIFESP Sleep Questionnaire was used to obtain self-reported sleep duration, sleep debt, and sleep duration variability. Participants also completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, the Insomnia Severity Index, and a pre-polysomnography sleep questionnaire.
After removing participants with missing data, there were 620 participants with no EDS, 255 individuals in the ESS group, 68 in the Frequent EDS group, and 73 in the Combined EDS group. Compared to the no EDS group, the ESS and Combined EDS groups had significantly increased sleep efficiency, diminished sleep latency, wake after sleep onset, and self-reported weekly sleep duration. The Frequent and Combined EDS groups had significantly higher scores in the Insomnia Severity Index and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. All EDS groups had an increased likelihood of nonrestorative sleep. EDS frequency and the ESS scores were significantly correlated.
Participants with a high sleep propensity had a profile suggesting prior sleep deprivation, while high sleepiness perception was associated with impaired sleep quality. These findings indicated that, in the general population, these instruments evaluated separate sleepiness dimensions with different associations, highlighting that screening using a combination of instruments might be more effective in detecting impairments in sleep health.
最近的证据支持这样一种观点,即困倦有几个维度,包括心理生理现象,如睡眠倾向和困倦感知。Epworth 嗜睡量表(ESS)是最常用的嗜睡评估工具之一,但最近的数据表明,它可能无法检测到睡眠健康方面的问题。有必要使用大样本量,结合客观和主观的睡眠分析方法,进一步研究困倦的维度。
我们使用了来自巴西进行的一项主要研究——Epidemiological Sleep Study(EPISONO)的数据,该研究使用了来自圣保罗市的一般人群的代表性样本 1042 名参与者,他们完成了问卷调查并接受了 I 型多导睡眠图检查。嗜睡通过 ESS(睡眠倾向)和 UNIFESP 睡眠问卷进行测量,该问卷询问了白天感到困倦的频率(困倦感知)。参与者根据以下标准分为 4 组:1)ESS 评分>10(ESS 组)。2)每周感到困倦≥3 次(频繁 EDS 组)。3)联合标准(联合 EDS 组)。4)无 EDS 证据(无 EDS 组)。使用 UNIFESP 睡眠问卷获得自我报告的睡眠时间、睡眠债务和睡眠时间变异性。参与者还完成了匹兹堡睡眠质量指数、失眠严重程度指数和预多导睡眠图睡眠问卷。
在排除了缺失数据的参与者后,有 620 名无 EDS 的参与者、255 名 ESS 组、68 名频繁 EDS 组和 73 名联合 EDS 组。与无 EDS 组相比,ESS 和联合 EDS 组的睡眠效率显著提高,睡眠潜伏期、睡眠后醒来和自我报告的每周睡眠时间减少。频繁和联合 EDS 组的失眠严重程度指数和匹兹堡睡眠质量指数得分明显更高。所有 EDS 组的非恢复性睡眠的可能性增加。EDS 频率和 ESS 评分显著相关。
具有高睡眠倾向的参与者具有先前睡眠剥夺的特征,而高睡眠感知与睡眠质量受损有关。这些发现表明,在一般人群中,这些工具评估了具有不同关联的不同的困倦维度,强调使用组合工具进行筛查可能更有效地检测睡眠健康方面的问题。