title: Subjective rating of perceived back pain, stiffness and sleep quality following introduction of medium-firm bedding systems.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare personal and new bedding systems between subjects with reported high and low base line sleep quality.
  
  
  METHODS
  A convenience sample of healthy subjects (women = 30; men = 29) with no clinical history of disturbed sleep participated in the study. Subjects recorded perceived back discomfort and stiffness, sleep quality and comfort, and sleep efficiency upon waking for 28 consecutive days in their own beds (baseline) and for 28 consecutive days (post) on a new bedding system. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to treat sleep data.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Analysis revealed significant differences between pre- and post means in all areas for both high and low sleep quality groups. Analysis of sleep efficiency also yielded significant differences between, but not among pre- and post means. Improvement of sleep comfort and quality became more prominent with time (from wk 1 to 4 post observation).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Similar significant benefits of new, medium- firm bedding systems can occur for those reporting both good and poor current sleep quality and variables such as age, weight, height, and body mass index are independent of such improvements.
authors.affiliation: School of Applied Health and Educational Psychology, Oklahoma State University.
authors.forename: Bert H
authors.initials: BH
authors.lastname: Jacobson
authors.forename: Tia
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Wallace
authors.forename: Hugh
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Gemmell
references.citation: J Nurs Res. 2005 Jun;13(2):153-64
references.pmid: 15986316
references.citation: Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006 Jan 1;173(1):7-15
references.pmid: 16284108
references.citation: Sleep. 1997 Dec;20(12):1197-200
references.pmid: 9493932
references.citation: MedGenMed. 2000 Sep 11;2(3):E36
references.pmid: 11104482
references.citation: Lancet. 1995 Aug 26;346(8974):541-4
references.pmid: 7658780
references.citation: Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2005 Aug-Sep;26(7):739-50
references.pmid: 16126649
references.citation: J South Orthop Assoc. 1996 Fall;5(3):185-7
references.pmid: 8884706
references.citation: CNS Drugs. 2001;15(4):311-28
references.pmid: 11463135
references.citation: J Assoc Physicians India. 2000 Sep;48(9):901-2
references.pmid: 11198791
references.citation: J Physiol Pharmacol. 2005 Dec;56 Suppl 6:59-65
references.pmid: 16340039
references.citation: ACP J Club. 2004 Jul-Aug;141(1):12
references.pmid: 15230560
references.citation: Clin Rheumatol. 2004 Dec;23(6):496-500
references.pmid: 15278758
references.citation: J Clin Rheumatol. 2003 Jun;9(3):164-9
references.pmid: 17041452
references.citation: Ergonomics. 2002 Sep 15;45(11):798-815
references.pmid: 12487692
references.citation: Lancet. 2003 Nov 15;362(9396):1599-604
references.pmid: 14630439
references.citation: J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2003 Jun;26(5):e15
references.pmid: 12819631
references.citation: Arch Intern Med. 1998 Sep 28;158(17):1894-8
references.pmid: 9759685
references.citation: Pain. 1981 Feb;10(1):87-91
references.pmid: 6453325
references.citation: Appl Ergon. 2000 Oct;31(5):487-97
references.pmid: 11059462
references.citation: J Psychosom Res. 2005 Dec;59(6):365-73
references.pmid: 16310018
references.citation: Schmerz. 1999 Jun 11;13(3):205-7
references.pmid: 12799934
references.citation: Obes Res. 2002 Dec;10 Suppl 2:105S-115S
references.pmid: 12490659
references.citation: J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2002 Feb;25(2):88-92
references.pmid: 11896375
references.citation: Phys Sportsmed. 1995 Jul;23(7):25-31
references.pmid: 29275727