Feasibility, Acceptability, and Preliminary Effectiveness of a Sleep Intervention in Adults at Risk for Metabolic Syndrome With Short Sleep Duration.
Susan Kohl Malone, Freda Patterson, Laura Grunin and 3 others
PMID 37733649WHAT IT FOUND
A 12-week sleep extension program was feasible and acceptable for adults with short sleep and metabolic syndrome risk.
Sleep duration and timing mostly improved, but sleep efficiency decreased and there was no control group.
Key findings
01The program was feasible and acceptable: participants attended 10.9 of 12 sessions, 86.4% attended at least 80% of sessions, and acceptability ratings increased from pre- to post-intervention.
02Sleep measures changed in different directions: time-in-bed, total sleep time, sleep onset timing, and sleep regularity improved, while sleep onset latency increased and sleep efficiency decreased.
03Depressive symptoms, morning and evening fatigue, and quality of life/affective well-being improved from pre- to post-intervention.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study was a single-arm pilot with no control group, so pre-post changes cannot be compared with usual care or natural variation. The analytic sample was small: 41 adults were analysed after 3 of 44 enrolled participants withdrew. Participants were all from the greater New York City area and were highly educated, limiting generalisability. The 12-week intervention may be too short for habit formation, which the paper notes can take up to 36 weeks. The study did not identify mechanisms linking improved sleep with reduced depression or fatigue, and it was not designed to determine whether systematic sleep extension directly reduced them. Metabolic syndrome comorbidities were part of eligibility, but the paper says the effect of the intervention on mitigating them is uncertain.
Declared interests
The authors report no conflicts of interest. The article is listed as supported by NIH extramural and non-U.S. government research support.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the sleep duration increase as proof that the intervention works. This was a single-arm pilot with no control group, so changes could reflect natural variation or other factors. The program also included sleep assessment, stimulus control, sleep hygiene modules, and systematic sleep time extension, so the contribution of any single component cannot be separated.