Mothers’ and fathers’ sleep: Is there a difference between first‐time and experienced parents of 6‐month‐olds?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sleep disruption and deprivation are highly prevalent among parents of an infant. However, most postpartum sleep studies focus solely on mothers, and few studies have investigated whether sleep differs between first-time and experienced parents. The present study aimed to determine whether self-reported sleep duration and quality differ between first-time and experienced mothers and fathers during the postpartum period. A total of 111 parents (54 couples and three single mothers) of 6-month-old infants completed a 2-week sleep diary to evaluate measures of sleep duration, sleep continuity, and sleep quality. An analysis of covariance model was used to compare the sleep variables of first-time to experienced parents. Breastfeeding frequency, infant sleep location, depression, education, and work status were used as co-variables. First-time mothers reported a longer consecutive nocturnal sleep duration (mean [SEM] 297.34 [17.15] versus 246.01 [14.79] min, p < .05), fewer nocturnal awakenings (mean [SEM] 1.57 [0.20] versus 2.12 [0.17], p < .05), and rated their sleep quality higher (mean [SEM] score 7.07 [0.36] versus 5.97 [0.30], p < .05) than experienced mothers, while total nocturnal sleep duration did not differ. There were no differences in subjective sleep measures between first-time and experienced fathers. The present study indicates that experienced mothers reported more fragmented sleep and perceived having worse sleep quality than first-time mothers, but that paternal sleep did not differ as a function of parental experience. These findings have clinical implications for healthcare professionals working with families of various configurations and sizes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".