Sick and Tired: Understanding and Managing Sleep Difficulties in ...

As the perceived sleep quality variables did not meet the assumption of a normal
distribution, Mann Whitney U tests were used to explore if there were any differences
between the two groups at each time-point as displayed in Table 14. No significant
differences were found between the two groups at baseline or follow up. However, as
this was a feasibility study the trends in the data were explored. As can be seen from
Table 14, improvements in sleep efficiency were observed in both groups at week 3
follow up in comparison to baseline. There also appeared to an improvement in
perceived sleep quality in the mindfulness group at week three.
Table 14. Measures of central tendency and variability for perceptions of sleep
quality
*Sleep
efficiency
(0-100%)
*Total
sleep time
(hh:mm)
Sleep onset
latency
(hh:mm)
Global
Score
Number of
awakenings
Median (IQR)
Week 1
Mindfulness PMR
group group
60.00
(39.94)
68.49
(32.65)
6.00 (2.25) 6.00
(2.05)
0.22 (0.21) 0.30
(0.5)
15.00 (5.75) 13.00
(8.50)
3.00 (2.04) 2.92
(1.36)
* high scores = better sleep quality
n.s = non significant at P=0.01 level
Mann
Whitney
U test
U=136.50
n.s
U=149.50
n.s
U=135.50
n.s
U=148.50
n.s
U=78.00
n.s
Median (IQR)
Week 3
Mindfulness PMR
group group
70.00
(24.67)
78.00
(22.56)
7.00 (1.45) 6.50
(1.35)
0.30 (0.28) 0.25
(0.18)
13.00 (4.50) 13.00
(5.25)
2.50 (1.79) 2.29
(1.75)
Mann
Whitney
U test
U=148.50
n.s
U=160.50
n.s
U=138.00
n.s
U=148.50
n.s
U=84.00
n.s
143