Sleeping under the waves: A longitudinal study across the contagion peaks of the COVID‐19 pandemic in Italy

  1. Federico Salfi
  2. Aurora D'Atri
  3. Daniela Tempesta
  4. Michele Ferrara

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

After the March–April 2020 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) outbreak, a second contagion wave afflicted Europe in the autumn. The present study aimed to evaluate sleep health/patterns of Italians during this further challenging situation. A total of 2,013 Italians longitudinally participated in a web‐based survey during the two contagion peaks of the COVID‐19 outbreak. We investigated the risk factors for sleep disturbances during the second wave, and we compared sleep quality and psychological well‐being between the two assessments (March–April and November–December 2020). Female gender, low education, evening chronotype, being a high‐risk person for COVID‐19 infection, reporting negative social or economic impact, and evening smartphone overuse predicted a higher risk of poor sleep and insomnia symptoms during the second wave. Advanced age, living with a high‐risk person for COVID‐19 infection, and having a relative/friend infected with COVID‐19 before the prior 2 weeks were risk categories for poor sleep quality. Living with children, having contracted COVID‐19 before the prior 2 weeks, being pessimistic about the vaccine and working in healthcare, were risk factors for insomnia symptoms. The follow‐up assessment highlighted reduced insomnia symptoms and anxiety. Nevertheless, we found reduced sleep duration, higher daytime dysfunction, advanced bedtime and wake‐up time, and a shift to morningness, confirming the alarming prevalence of poor sleepers (~60%) and severe depression (~20%) in a context of increased perceived stress. The present study showed a persistent impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on sleep and mental health. Large‐scale interventions to counteract the chronicity and exacerbation of sleep and psychological disturbances are necessary, especially for the at‐risk categories.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1111/jsr.13313
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.17.21249947: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: Online informed consent was obtained from participants.
    IRB: The study has been approved by the Internal Review Board of the University of L’Aquila (protocol n. 43066) and has been carried out according to the principles established by the Declaration of Helsinki.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.01.17.21249947v1 on medRxiv