Correlations in sleeping patterns and circadian preference between spouses
-
Published:2023-11-13
Issue:1
Volume:6
Page:
-
ISSN:2399-3642
-
Container-title:Communications Biology
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Commun Biol
Author:
Richmond Rebecca C.ORCID, Howe Laurence J.ORCID, Heilbron Karl, Jones SamuelORCID, Liu Junxi, Aslibekyan Stella, Auton Adam, Babalola Elizabeth, Bell Robert K., Bielenberg Jessica, Bryc Katarzyna, Bullis Emily, Coker Daniella, Partida Gabriel Cuellar, Dhamija Devika, Das Sayantan, Elson Sarah L., Filshtein Teresa, Fletez-Brant Kipper, Fontanillas Pierre, Freyman Will, Gandhi Pooja M., Heilbron Karl, Hicks Barry, Hinds David A., Jewett Ethan M., Jiang Yunxuan, Kukar Katelyn, Lin Keng-Han, Lowe Maya, McCreight Jey C., McIntyre Matthew H., Micheletti Steven J., Moreno Meghan E., Mountain Joanna L., Nandakumar Priyanka, Noblin Elizabeth S., O’Connell Jared, Petrakovitz Aaron A., Poznik G. David, Schumacher Morgan, Shastri Anjali J., Shelton Janie F., Shi Jingchunzi, Shringarpure Suyash, Tran Vinh, Tung Joyce Y., Wang Xin, Wan Wei, Weldon Catherine H., Wilton Peter, Hernandez Alejandro, Wong Corinna, Tchakouté Christophe Toukam, Wang XinORCID, Weedon Michael N., Rutter Martin K., Lawlor Deborah A.ORCID, Davey Smith GeorgeORCID, Vetter Céline,
Abstract
AbstractSpouses may affect each other’s sleeping behaviour. In 47,420 spouse-pairs from the UK Biobank, we found a weak positive phenotypic correlation between spouses for self-reported sleep duration (r = 0.11; 95% CI = 0.10, 0.12) and a weak inverse correlation for chronotype (diurnal preference) (r = −0.11; −0.12, −0.10), which replicated in up to 127,035 23andMe spouse-pairs. Using accelerometer data on 3454 UK Biobank spouse-pairs, the correlation for derived sleep duration was similar to self-report (r = 0.12; 0.09, 0.15). Timing of diurnal activity was positively correlated (r = 0.24; 0.21, 0.27) in contrast to the inverse correlation for chronotype. In Mendelian randomization analysis, positive effects of sleep duration (mean difference=0.13; 0.04, 0.23 SD per SD) and diurnal activity (0.49; 0.03, 0.94) were observed, as were inverse effects of chronotype (−0.15; −0.26, −0.04) and snoring (−0.15; −0.27, −0.04). Findings support the notion that an individual’s sleep may impact that of their partner, promoting opportunities for sleep interventions at the family-level.
Funder
RCUK | Medical Research Council Cancer Research UK Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung Novo Nordisk UK Research Foundation British Heart Foundation DH | National Institute for Health Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Agricultural and Biological Sciences,General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology,Medicine (miscellaneous)
Reference65 articles.
1. Krueger, P. M. & Friedman, E. M. Sleep duration in the United States: a cross-sectional population-based study. Am. J. Epidemiol. 169, 1052–1063 (2009). 2. Calem, M. et al. Increased prevalence of insomnia and changes in hypnotics use in England over 15 years: analysis of the 1993, 2000, and 2007 National Psychiatric Morbidity Surveys. Sleep 35, 377–384 (2012). 3. Kocevska, D. et al. Sleep characteristics across the lifespan in 1.1 million people from the Netherlands, United Kingdom and United States: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nat. Hum. Behav. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-00965-x (2020). 4. Uehli, K. et al. Sleep problems and work injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep. Med Rev. 18, 61–73 (2014). 5. Hafner, M., Stepanek, M., Taylor, J., Troxel, W. M. & van Stolk, C. Why sleep matters-the economic costs of insufficient sleep: a cross-country comparative analysis. Rand Health Q 6, 11 (2017).
|
|