Search

Accurate measurement of habitual sleep duration (HSD) is crucial for understanding the relationship between sleep and health. This study aimed to assess the bias and agreement limits between two commonly used short HSD self-report methods, considering sleep quality (SQ) and social jetlag (SJL) as potential predictors of bias. Data from 10,268 participants in the International COVID Sleep Study-II (ICOSS-II) were used. Method-Self and Method-MCTQ were compared. Method-Self involved a single question about average nightly sleep duration (HSD self ), while Method-MCTQ estimated HSD from reported sleep times on workdays (HSD MCTQwork ) and free days (HSD MCTQfree ). Sleep quality was evaluated using a Likert scale and the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) to explore its influence on estimation bias. HSD self was on average 42.41 ± 67.42 min lower than HSD MCTQweek , with an agreement range within ± 133 min. The bias and agreement range between methods increased with poorer SQ. HSD MCTQwork showed less bias and better agreement with HSD self compared to HSD MCTQfree . Sleep duration irregularity was - 43.35 ± 78.26 min on average. Subjective sleep quality predicted a significant proportion of variance in HSD self and estimation bias. The two methods showed very poor agreement and a significant systematic bias, both worsening with poorer SQ. Method-MCTQ considered sleep intervals without adjusting for SQ issues such as wakefulness after sleep onset but accounted for sleep irregularity and sleeping in on free days, while Method-Self reflected respondents' interpretation of their sleep, focusing on their sleep on workdays. Including an SQ-related question in surveys may help bidirectionally adjust the possible bias and enhance the accuracy of sleep-health studies., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

A correction to this article has been published and is linked from the HTML version of this paper. The error has been fixed in the paper.

Individual circadian preference types and sleep EEG patterns related to spindle characteristics, have both been associated with similar cognitive and mental health phenotypes. However, no previous study has examined whether sleep spindles would differ by circadian preference. Here, we explore if spindle amplitude, density, duration or intensity differ by circadian preference and whether these associations are moderated by spindle location, frequency, and time distribution across the night. The participants (N = 170, 59% girls; mean age = 16.9, SD = 0.1 years) filled in the shortened 6-item Horne-Östberg Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire. We performed an overnight sleep EEG at the homes of the participants. In linear mixed model analyses, we found statistically significant lower spindle amplitude and intensity in the morning as compared to intermediate (P < 0.001) and evening preference groups (P < 0.01; P > 0.06 for spindle duration and density). Spindle frequency moderated the associations (P < 0.003 for slow (<13 Hz); P > 0.2 for fast (>13 Hz)). Growth curve analyses revealed a distinct time distribution of spindles across the night by the circadian preference: both spindle amplitude and intensity decreased more towards morning in the morning preference group than in other groups. Our results indicate that circadian preference is not only affecting the sleep timing, but also associates with sleep microstructure regarding sleep spindle phenotypes.