Observation and Interview-based Diurnal Sleepiness Inventory for measurement of sleepiness in older adults

Abstract

Introduction

There is no established reference standard for subjective measures of sleepiness in older adults.

Methods

This study compares the Observation and Interview-based Diurnal Sleepiness Inventory (ODSI) with two existing instruments for measurement of sleepiness and daily functioning, the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ).

Results

A total of 125 study participants were included in this study and were administered the ODSI, ESS and FOSQ; subjects had a mean age of 70.9 ± 5.27 years, mean Apnea–Hypopnea Index of 31.9 ± 27.9 events/hour and normal cognitive functioning (Mini-Mental State Examination score > 24). The ODSI showed a significant association with the ESS (Spearman’s ρ: 0.67, P < 0.001) and with the FOSQ (Spearman’s ρ: −0.52, P < 0.001). The ODSI 1 item (assessing sleepiness in active situations) was borderline significantly correlated with the ESS (β = 0.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.01 to 0.29; P = 0.069). ODSI 2 item (sleepiness in passive situations) was correlated with the ESS (β = 1.65; 95% CI, 1.32 to 1.98; P < 0.001). Both ODSI 1 (β = −0.15; 95% CI, −0.24 to −0.07; P < 0.001) and ODSI 2 (β = −0.35; 95% CI, −0.55 to 0.16; P < 0.001) were significantly correlated with the FOSQ.

Conclusion

The ODSI is a suitable measure of sleepiness and is appropriate for usage in clinical care in older adults.

Keywords:

• excessive daytime sleepiness
• functional status
• sleep disorders
• questionnaires

Acknowledgments

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) provided financial support in the form of 1K99NR014675-01/R00NR014675-03 funding (Pak). The sponsor had no role in the design or conduct of this research. The authors acknowledge Swathi Yarlagadda, M.B.B.S. for her help with literature review.

Disclosure

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership or other equity interest and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements) or nonfinancial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.