Multidimensional sleep health domains in older men and women: an actigraphy factor analysis

Abstract

The multidimensional sleep health framework emphasizes that sleep can be characterized across several domains, with implications for developing novel sleep treatments and improved prediction and health screening. However, empirical evidence regarding the domains and representative measures that exist in actigraphy-assessed sleep is lacking. We aimed to establish these domains and representative measures in older adults by examining the factor structure of 28 actigraphy-derived sleep measures from 2,841 older men from the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Sleep Study and, separately, from 2,719 older women from the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures. Measures included means and standard deviations of actigraphy summary measures and estimates from extended cosine models of the raw actigraphy data. Exploratory factor analyses revealed the same five factors in both sexes: Timing (e.g. mean midpoint from sleep onset to wake-up), Efficiency (e.g. mean sleep efficiency), Duration (e.g. mean minutes from sleep onset to wake-up), Sleepiness/Wakefulness (e.g. mean minutes napping and amplitude of rhythm), and Regularity (e.g. standard deviation of the midpoint). Within each sex, confirmatory factor analyses confirmed the one-factor structure of each factor and the entire five-factor structure (Comparative Fit Index and Tucker-Lewis Index ≥ 0.95; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation 0.08-0.38). Correlation magnitudes among factors ranged from 0.01 to 0.34. These findings demonstrate the validity of conceptualizing actigraphy sleep as multidimensional, provide a framework for selecting sleep health domains and representative measures, and suggest targets for behavioral interventions. Similar analyses should be performed with additional measures of rhythmicity, other age ranges, and more racially/ethnically diverse samples.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 74 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.