Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Current Oncology · October 28, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Background and Objectives: Sleep quality during particle therapy remains understudied. We assessed subjective and objective sleep quality, their correlations, and associated factors. Methods: This single-center cross-sectional study included 443 patients assessed using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and seven-day wrist actigraphy. Spearman correlations and multivariable logistic regression were used. Results: Among 443 patients, 229 (51.7%) had subjective poor sleep quality and 269 (60.7%) had objective poor sleep quality. Corresponding PSQI and actigraphy-derived sleep measures showed positive Spearman correlations for total sleep time (TST) (ρ = 0.417, p < 0.001), sleep efficiency (SE) (ρ = 0.360, p < 0.001), and sleep-onset latency (SOL) (ρ = 0.273, p < 0.001). In the multivariable model for subjective poor sleep quality, older age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.039 per year; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.013–1.067; p = 0.004), greater symptom burden (aOR = 1.044 per ESAS-r Cancer point; 95% CI, 1.016–1.073; p = 0.002), and hypnotic medication use before particle therapy (aOR = 4.040 versus no use; 95% CI, 1.496–10.909; p = 0.006) were associated with higher odds, whereas healthier sleep beliefs were associated with lower odds (aOR = 0.907 per DBAS-16 point; 95% CI, 0.882–0.933; p < 0.001). Annual household income was also associated with subjective poor sleep quality (overall p = 0.043); specifically, patients earning CNY 200,000–500,000 had higher odds than those earning less than CNY 200,000 (aOR = 2.165; 95% CI, 1.160–4.042; p = 0.015). In the model for objective poor sleep quality, older age (aOR = 1.032 per year; 95% CI, 1.011–1.053; p = 0.003), greater symptom burden (aOR = 1.028 per ESAS-r Cancer point; 95% CI, 1.005–1.052; p = 0.015), and male sex (aOR = 1.904 versus female sex; 95% CI, 1.123–3.230; p = 0.017) were associated with higher odds, while healthier sleep beliefs were associated with lower odds (aOR = 0.979 per DBAS-16 point; 95% CI, 0.959–0.999; p = 0.044). Conclusions: Subjective and objective poor sleep quality were common during particle therapy. Questionnaire screening supplemented by actigraphy may support more comprehensive sleep-quality assessment in oncology nursing.