Open AccessSLEEP QUALITY AND QUALITY OF LIFE AMONG MALAYSIAN PHARMACY UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
Author(s) -
Nurul Najihah Mohamad Hanapi,
Siew Chin Ong,
Guat See Ooi,
Nur Aizati Athirah Daud
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
malaysian journal of pharmaceutical sciences
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2180-429X
pISSN - 1675-7319
DOI - 10.21315/mjps2021.19.1.5
Subject(s) - pittsburgh sleep quality index , pharmacy , affect (linguistics) , quality of life (healthcare) , medicine , odds ratio , confidence interval , sleep quality , test (biology) , sleep (system call) , psychology , gerontology , physical therapy , family medicine , psychiatry , nursing , insomnia , paleontology , communication , biology , computer science , operating system
University students tend to have poor sleeping pattern, especially those who took professional courses. Poor sleep quality may affect one’s mental and physical well- being and quality of life (QoL). Thus, this study aims to determine the sleep quality of pharmacy students, factors associated with it, and their QoL. A cross-sectional study was conducted using questionnaires involving undergraduate pharmacy students in Universiti Sains Malaysia. The Pittsburgh Sleeping Quality Index (PSQI) was used to determine the sleep quality, while QoL was determined using Short Form-36 Survey (SF-36). Poor sleepers were defined as having a PSQI score of ≥ 5. Independent t-test and Chi-square test were used to compare between variables. A total of 256 respondents completed the questionnaires. Majority (n = 215, 84%) of the respondents were poor sleepers. Results showed a nearly 3-fold increase in the risk of being a poor sleeper among those taking more than 20 credit units (odds ratio [OR] 2.73; 95% [confidence interval] CI: 1.38, 5.39). The mean score for QoL in seven domains was 61.5 ± 20.1. Respondents were shown to have good physical functioning (mean: 87.2 ± 18.4) but having a low score in the ‘energy or fatigue’ domain (mean: 47.0 ± 16.8). One domain in QoL, ‘emotional well-being’, was found to be significantly lower among respondents with poor sleep (p = 0.035). In conclusion, the majority of the respondents had poor sleep quality and a higher credit unit was a factor for poor sleep quality. With regards to QoL, respondents had good physical functioning but poor vitality and sleep quality had affected their emotional well-being.