Sleep characteristics across the lifespan in 1.1 million people from the Netherlands, United Kingdom and United States: a systematic review and meta-analysis

How long does the average person sleep? Here, Kocevska et al. conducted a meta-analysis including over 1.1 million people to produce age- and sex-specific population reference charts for sleep duration and efficiency.We aimed to obtain reliable reference charts for sleep duration, estimate the prevalence of sleep complaints across the lifespan and identify risk indicators of poor sleep. Studies were identified through systematic literature search in Embase, Medline and Web of Science (9 August 2019) and through personal contacts. Eligible studies had to be published between 2000 and 2017 with data on sleep assessed with questionnaires including >= 100 participants from the general population. We assembled individual participant data from 200,358 people (aged 1-100 years, 55% female) from 36 studies from the Netherlands, 471,759 people (40-69 years, 55.5% female) from the United Kingdom and 409,617 people (>= 18 years, 55.8% female) from the United States. One in four people slept less than age-specific recommendations, but only 5.8% slept outside of the 'acceptable' sleep duration. Among teenagers, 51.5% reported total sleep times (TST) of less than the recommended 8-10 h and 18% report daytime sleepiness. In adults (>= 18 years), poor sleep quality (13.3%) and insomnia symptoms (9.6-19.4%) were more prevalent than short sleep duration (6.5% with TST = 9 h in bed, whereas poor sleep quality was more frequent in those spending = 41 years) reported sleeping shorter times or slightly less efficiently than men, whereas with actigraphy they were estimated to sleep longer and more efficiently than man. This study provides age- and sex-specific population reference charts for sleep duration and efficiency which can help guide personalized advice on sleep length and preventive practices.Pathophysiology, epidemiology and therapy of agein

The impact of lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic on mental and social health of children and adolescents

Purpose: During the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands, governmental regulations resulted in a lockdown for adults as well as children/adolescents. Schools were closed and contact with other people was limited. In this cross-sectional, population-based study, we aimed to investigate the mental/social health of children/adolescents during COVID-19 lockdown. Methods: Two representative samples of Dutch children/adolescents (8–18 years) before COVID-19 (2018, N = 2401) and during lockdown (April 2020, N = 844) were compared on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) domains: global health, peer relationships, anxiety, depressive symptoms, anger, sleep-related impairment by linear mixed models and calculating relative risks (RR (95% CI)) for the proportion of severe scores. Variables associated with worse mental/social health during COVID-19 were explored through multivariable regression models. The impact of COVID-19 regulations on the daily life of children was qualitatively analyzed. Results: Participants reported worse PROMIS T-scores on all domains during COVID-19 lockdown compared to before (absolute mean difference range 2.1–7.1 (95% CI 1.3–7.9). During lockdown, more children reported severe Anxiety (RR = 1.95 (1.55–2.46) and Sleep-Related Impairment (RR = 1.89 (1.29–2.78) and fewer children reported poor Global Health (RR = 0.36 (0.20–0.65)). Associated factors with worse mental/social health were single-parent family, ≥ three children in the family, negative change in work situation of parents due to COVID-19 regulations, and a relative/friend infected with COVID-19. A large majority (> 90%) reported a negative impact of the COVID-19 regulations on daily life. Conclusion: This study showed that governmental regulations regarding lockdown pose a serious mental/social health threat on children/adolescents that should be brought to the forefront of political decision-making and mental healthcare policy, intervention, and prevention