Working-from-home persistently influences sleep and physical activity 2 years after the Covid-19 pandemic onset: a longitudinal sleep tracker and electronic diary-based study.

Objective: Working from home (WFH) has become common place since the Covid-19 pandemic. Early studies observed population-level shifts in sleep patterns (later and longer sleep) and physical activity (reduced PA), during home confinement. Other studies found these changes to depend on the proportion of days that individuals WFH (vs. work from office; WFO). Here, we examined the effects of WFH on sleep and activity patterns in the transition to normality during the later stages of the Covid-19 pandemic (Aug 2021-Jan 2022). Methods: Two-hundred and twenty-five working adults enrolled in a public health study were followed for 22 weeks. Sleep and activity data were collected with a consumer fitness tracker (Fitbit Versa 2). Over three 2-week periods (Phase 1/week 1-2: August 16-29, 2021; Phase 2/week 11-12: October 25-November 7, 2021; Phase 3/week 21-22: January 3-16, 2022), participants provided daily Fitbit sleep and activity records. Additionally, they completed daily phone-based ecological momentary assessment (EMA), providing ratings of sleep quality, wellbeing (mood, stress, motivation), and information on daily work arrangements (WFH, WFO, no work). Work arrangement data were used to examine the effects of WFH vs. WFO on sleep, activity, and wellbeing. Results: The proportion of WFH vs. WFO days fluctuated over the three measurement periods, mirroring evolving Covid restrictions. Across all three measurement periods WFH days were robustly associated with later bedtimes (+14.7 min), later wake times (+42.3 min), and longer Total Sleep Time (+20.2 min), compared to WFO days. Sleep efficiency was not affected. WFH was further associated with lower daily step count than WFO (-2,471 steps/day). WFH was associated with higher wellbeing ratings compared to WFO for those participants who had no children. However, for participants with children, these differences were not present. Conclusion: Pandemic-initiated changes in sleep and physical activity were sustained during the later stage of the pandemic. These changes could have longer term effects, and conscious effort is encouraged to harness the benefits (i.e., longer sleep), and mitigate the pitfalls (i.e., less physical activity). These findings are relevant for public health as hybrid WHF is likely to persist in a post-pandemic world.

Influence of mid-afternoon nap duration and sleep parameters on memory encoding, mood, processing speed, and vigilance.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To determine how mid-afternoon naps of differing durations benefit memory encoding, vigilance, speed of processing (SOP), mood, and sleepiness; to evaluate if these benefits extend past 3 hr post-awakening and to examine how sleep macrostructure during naps modulate these benefits. METHODS: Following short habitual sleep, 32 young adults underwent four experimental conditions in randomized order: wake; naps of 10 min, 30 min, and 60 min duration verified with polysomnography. A 10-min test battery was delivered at a pre-nap baseline, and at 5 min, 30 min, 60 min, and 240 min post-nap. Participants encoded pictures 90 min post-nap and were tested for recognition 210 min later. RESULTS: Naps ranging from 10 to 60 min increased positive mood and alleviated self-reported sleepiness up to 240 min post-nap. Compared to waking, only naps of 30 min improved memory encoding. Improvements in vigilance were moderate, and benefits for SOP were not observed. Sleep inertia was observed for the 30 min to 60 min naps but was resolved within 30 min after waking. We found no significant associations between sleep macrostructure and memory benefits. CONCLUSIONS: With short habitual sleep, naps ranging from 10 to 60 min had clear and lasting benefits for positive mood and self-reported sleepiness/alertness. Cognitive improvements were moderate, with only the 30 min nap showing benefits for memory encoding. While there is no clear "winning" nap duration, a 30 min nap appears to have the best trade-off between practicability and benefit. CLINICAL TRIAL ID: Effects of Varying Duration of Naps on Cognitive Performance and Memory Encoding, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04984824, NCT04984824.

A randomized-controlled trial of a digital, small incentive-based intervention for working adults with short sleep.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the efficacy of a digitally delivered, small and scalable incentive-based intervention program on sleep and wellbeing in short-sleeping, working adults. METHODS: A 22-week, parallel-group, randomized-controlled trial was conducted on 21-40 y participants gifted with FitbitTM devices to measure sleep for ≥2 years, as part of a broader healthy lifestyle study. About 225 short sleepers (141 males; average time-in-bed, TIB < 7h) were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to Goal-Setting or Control groups. The Goal-Setting group received health vouchers (~USD 0.24) for meeting each sleep goal (i.e. increasing weeknight TIB by 30 min/sleeping before midnight).The study spanned three phases: (1) 2-week Baseline, (2) 10-week Intervention, and (3) 10-week Follow-Up. Wellbeing questionnaires were administered on Weeks 1-2, 11-12, and 21-22. RESULTS: Baseline weeknight TIB (mean ±â€…SD) was 387 ±â€…43 min (Goal-Setting) and 399 ±â€…44 min (Control), while bedtime was 00:53 ±â€…01:13 (Goal-Setting), and 00:38 ±â€…00:56 (Control). No difference in sleep outcomes was observed at study endpoints, but exploratory week-by-week analysis showed that on Weeks 3-5, TIB in the Goal-Setting group increased (9-18 min; ps < 0.05) while on Week 5, bedtimes shifted earlier (15 min; p < 0.01) compared to Baseline. Morning sleepiness was reduced in the Goal-Setting group (mean[SEM] = -3.17(1.53); p = 0.04) compared to Baseline, although between-group differences were not significant (p = 0.62). Main barriers to sleeping longer were work hours (35%), followed by leisure activities (23%) and family commitments (22%). CONCLUSION: Our program resulted in encouraging subjective sleep improvements and short-term sleep extension, but sustained transformation of sleep will probably require structural measures to overcome significant obstacles to sleep. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04878380 (hiSG Sleep Health Study (hiSG-SHS); https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04878380).

Minimum number of nights for reliable estimation of habitual sleep using a consumer sleep tracker.

Study Objectives: To determine the minimum number of nights required to reliably estimate weekly and monthly mean sleep duration and sleep variability measures from a consumer sleep technology (CST) device (Fitbit). Methods: Data comprised 107 144 nights from 1041 working adults aged 21-40 years. Intraclass correlation (ICC) analyses were conducted on both weekly and monthly time windows to determine the number of nights required to achieve ICC values of 0.60 and 0.80, corresponding to "good" and "very good" reliability thresholds. These minimum numbers were then validated on data collected 1-month and 1-year later. Results: Minimally, 3 and 5 nights were required to obtain "good" and "very good" mean weekly total sleep time (TST) estimates, while 5 and 10 nights were required for monthly TST estimates. For weekday-only estimates, 2 and 3 nights were sufficient for weekly time windows while 3 and 7 nights sufficed for monthly time windows. Weekend-only estimates of monthly TST required 3 and 5 nights. TST variability required 5 and 6 nights for weekly time windows, and 11 and 18 nights for monthly time windows. Weekday-only weekly variability required 4 nights for both "good" and "very good" estimates while monthly variability required 9 and 14 nights. Weekend-only estimates of monthly variability required 5 and 7 nights. Error estimates made using data collected 1-month and 1-year later with these parameters were comparable to those associated with the original dataset. Conclusions: Studies should consider the metric, measurement window of interest, and desired reliability threshold to decide on the minimum number of nights required to assess habitual sleep using CST devices.

A longitudinal analysis of COVID-19 lockdown stringency on sleep and resting heart rate measures across 20 countries.

Lockdowns imposed to stem the spread of COVID-19 massively disrupted the daily routines of many worldwide, but studies to date have been mostly confined to observations within a limited number of countries, based on subjective reports and surveys from specific time periods during the pandemic. We investigated associations between lockdown stringency and objective sleep and resting-heart rate measures in ~ 113,000 users of a consumer sleep tracker across 20 countries from Jan to Jul 2020, compared to an equivalent period in 2019. With stricter lockdown measures, midsleep times were universally delayed, particularly on weekdays, while midsleep variability and resting heart rate declined. These shifts (midsleep: + 0.09 to + 0.58 h; midsleep variability: - 0.12 to - 0.26 h; resting heart rate: - 0.35 to - 2.08 bpm) correlated with the severity of lockdown across different countries (all Ps < 0.001) and highlight the graded influence of stringency lockdowns on human physiology.

COVID-19-related mobility reduction: heterogenous effects on sleep and physical activity rhythms.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Mobility restrictions imposed to suppress transmission of COVID-19 can alter physical activity (PA) and sleep patterns that are important for health and well-being. Characterization of response heterogeneity and their underlying associations may assist in stratifying the health impact of the pandemic. METHODS: We obtained wearable data covering baseline, incremental mobility restriction, and lockdown periods from 1,824 city-dwelling, working adults aged 21-40 years, incorporating 206,381 nights of sleep and 334,038 days of PA. Distinct rest-activity rhythm (RAR) profiles were identified using k-means clustering, indicating participants' temporal distribution of step counts over the day. Hierarchical clustering of the proportion of days spent in each of these RAR profiles revealed four groups who expressed different mixtures of RAR profiles before and during the lockdown. RESULTS: Time in bed increased by 20 min during the lockdown without loss of sleep efficiency, while social jetlag measures decreased by 15 min. Resting heart rate declined by ~2 bpm. PA dropped an average of 42%. Four groups with different compositions of RAR profiles were found. Three were better able to maintain PA and weekday/weekend differentiation during lockdown. The least active group comprising ~51% of the sample, were younger and predominantly singles. Habitually less active already, this group showed the greatest reduction in PA during lockdown with little weekday/weekend differences. CONCLUSION: In the early aftermath of COVID-19 mobility restriction, PA appears to be more severely affected than sleep. RAR evaluation uncovered heterogeneity of responses to lockdown that could associate with different outcomes should the resolution of COVID-19 be protracted.

Cognitive effects of split and continuous sleep schedules in adolescents differ according to total sleep opportunity.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: We compared the basic cognitive functions of adolescents undergoing split (nocturnal sleep + daytime nap) and continuous nocturnal sleep schedules when total sleep opportunity was either below or within the recommended range (i.e. 6.5 or 8 h). METHODS: Adolescent participants (age: 15-19 year) in the 8-h split (n = 24) and continuous (n = 29) sleep groups were compared with 6.5-h split and continuous sleep groups from a previous study (n = 58). These protocols involved two baseline nights (9-h time-in-bed [TIB]), 5 nights of sleep manipulation, 2 recovery nights (9-h TIB), followed by a second cycle of sleep manipulation (3 nights) and recovery (2 nights). Cognitive performance, subjective sleepiness, and mood were evaluated daily; sleep was assessed using polysomnography. RESULTS: Splitting 6.5 h of sleep with a mid-afternoon nap offered a boost to cognitive function compared to continuous nocturnal sleep. However, when total TIB across 24 h increased to 8 h, the split and continuous sleep groups performed comparably in tests evaluating vigilance, working memory, executive function, processing speed, subjective sleepiness, and mood. CONCLUSIONS: In adolescents, the effects of split sleep on basic cognitive functions vary by the amount of total sleep obtained. As long as the total sleep opportunity across 24 h is within the recommended range, students may fulfill sleep requirements by adopting a split sleep schedule consisting of a shorter period of nocturnal sleep combined with a mid-afternoon nap, without significant impact on basic cognitive functions. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04044885.