Predisposing factors in delayed sleep phase syndrome.

Sleep Disorders Clinic, Seiwa Hospital, Neuropsychiatric Research Institute, University of Tokyo, Japan.
Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences (Impact Factor: 2.04). 07/2000; 54(3):356-8. DOI: 10.1046/j.1440-1819.2000.00713.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We classified 64 patients with chronic delayed sleep phase syndrome (DSPS) into the primary (n = 53) and secondary (n = 11) group according to presence or absence of such signs as difficulty in waking up which appeared much earlier than the onset of DSPS. The age at the onset of the early signs concentrated in adolescence. The familial occurrence of DSPS was noted in 11 patients of the primary group. In human leukocyte antigen (HLA) typing, the incidence of DR1 positivity alone was significantly higher in DSPS patients than in healthy subjects. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory revealed high scores on depression, psychoasthenia and hypochondriasis. We suggest that a predisposition to DSPS includes biological, genetic, social and psychological factors, various combinations of which may lead to DSPS.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Studies indicate that sleep problems in children and adolescents are highly prevalent, with prevalence rates ranging from 25% to 40%. They are even more common in special populations, especially children with psychiatric issues. Furthermore, sleep issues are often persistent. Unfortunately, sleep disturbances often do not receive the attention that they deserve, especially since they are often highly amenable to intervention. Sleep problems, in general, range from those that are physiologically-based, such as obstructive sleep apnoea and restless legs syndrome, to those that are behaviorally-based. The behaviourally-based sleep disorders are reviewed, including a discussion of assessment, prevalence and treatment. Non-pharmacologic approaches are usually the preferred treatment and have received the most empirical support in paediatric populations. It is strongly recommended that all paediatric healthcare providers consider sleep issues in their comprehensive assessment of all children and adolescents, especially those with psychiatric issues, and provide preventive education as part of their usual standard of care.
    Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore 09/2008; 37(8):722-8. · 1.36 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper will present a framework for the management and optimisation of MCM test strategies, and describe a software tool developed for the purpose, based on economics models. MCMs can suffer from low system yield, and the final cost and quality are highly sensitive to the choice of test strategy. The framework presented is an end-to end cost and quality model of the MCM manufacture and test process from die procurement and KGD strategy to final test and rework, and provides a powerful means of test strategy evaluation and optimisation tailored to the project and the organisation. The paper presents an outline of the tool, together with the outcome of a case study evaluated using this framework
    Multichip Modules, 1997., 6th International Conference on; 05/1997
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: College students are vulnerable to a variety of sleep disorders, which can result in sleep deprivation and a variety of other consequences. The delivery of behavioral sleep medicine is particularly relevant for the college student population, as the early intervention on their sleep problems might prevent lifelong consequences. This article critically reviews the efficacy of relevant behavioral sleep medicine interventions and discusses special considerations for using them with college students who have unique sleep patterns and lifestyles. Recommendations are also given regarding ways to disseminate these empirically supported treatments into this environment. Finally, recommendations regarding future research directions are discussed in the present study.
    Journal of Adolescent Health 06/2011; 48(6):553-61. · 2.97 Impact Factor