You can now do a sleep apnoea test using your watch. Is it worth it?
You also might understand why up to 90 per cent of the 1 billion-odd people believed to have sleep apnoea go undiagnosed.
Apart from potential cost and access issues, fatigue is so common we've normalised it – we live in the era of 'The Great Exhaustion', according to author and computer science professor Cal Newport. Besides, who wants another disturbed night's sleep for a test when they already feel dog-tired?
Enter the growing number of wearables offering a minimally disruptive sleep apnoea test in the comfort of your own bed.
But how does a device on your wrist detect obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA), in which throat muscles intermittently collapse and block the airway during sleep, causing a person's breathing to stop and start? How accurate are they? And, if they don't replace a formal diagnosis, what's the point?
Last week, Apple announced the Australian release of its sleep apnoea feature, available on Apple Watch Series 9 and above and Apple Watch Ultra 2. In August, Samsung's sleep apnoea feature on the Galaxy Watch will become available in Australia.
While other devices, such as Whoop, Oura, Garmin and FitBit, have sleep health features that can alert the wearer to disrupted sleep patterns, they do not have specific Therapeutic Goods Administration-approved features to detect breathing disturbances and therefore sleep apnoea.
So how does it work?
Dr Matt Bianchi, formerly an assistant professor in neurology at Harvard Medical School, is now a research scientist at Apple.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Sydney Midwife who accused Melbourne obstetrician of ‘anti-Semitism' dragged to court for alleged stalking, harassment and doxxing
A long-running saga between an obstetrician and a midwife with different views on the Middle East has landed in court. Melbourne obstetrician Dr Miranda Robinson has applied for a personal safety intervention order in the Melbourne Magistrates Court against Sydney-based Sharon Stoliar, accusing her of stalking and harassment. But the former midwife-turned-maternity advocate has hit back with her own claims of 'racism' and 'anti-Semitism' against Dr Robinson, in an exclusive sit-down interview with Sky News. Dr Robinson made headlines 10 years ago when she delivered four sets of twin girls in one week, during a baby boom at St Vincent's Private Hospital in Melbourne. In the past year, she's restyled herself as something of a medical influencer, posting reels to her public Facebook page about maternity care and revealing her own personal struggles with neurodiversity. But it was a post Dr Robinson made to a Facebook group Australian and New Zealand Doctors for Palestine, which then boasted 1200 members, that began her stoush with Ms Stoliar in January last year. The specialist had posted about Ms Stoliar being a 'POC [person of colour] and married to a Jewish man' who'd 'been brainwashed' due to her support for Israel, adding, 'I'd be very worried if I were one of her patients.' Ms Stoliar was sent a screenshot of the comment and posted it to her own Instagram account, with the caption 'Post 1 of many where healthcare professionals have participated in making libellous statements against me.' She also obtained and reposted screenshots of a private message Dr Robinson had sent another Instagram user, in which the doctor describes Ms Stoliar as being linked to the 'Jewish mafia' and whose Jewish family comes from 'dirty, dirty money'. Ms Stoliar filed complaints about Dr Robinson's posts to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) and the Royal Australian New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and also contacted the obstetrician's employers at St Vincent's and Epsworth private hospitals, and Sage Women's Healthcare. The Australian reported last August AHPRA had backflipped on a decision to impose conditions on Dr Robinson, instead finding she had 'indicated that she never intentionally meant to cause harm to [Ms Stoliar] and appreciates that [she] may have found the comments to have been hurtful.' The agency said the doctor had completed 'formal education' on social media use and 'demonstrated her commitment to uphold the professional standards with respect to appropriate conduct on social media.' But Dr Robinson continued to publish offensive posts to social media, in November sharing another post titled 'Z!onism is a mental illness' and commenting she 'loves the Netherlands' on a post about the attacks on Jewish football fans in Amsterdam that month. Bizarrely, Dr Robinson also posted a comment in support of convicted mushroom killer Erin Patterson to LinkedIn, writing, 'I see someone yet again traumatised by a system that doesn't understand her.' Other pro-Israel activists started to reshare Dr Robinson's content online with their own commentary. Ms Stoliar then made a second complaint with AHPRA in March this year about the fresh posts, followed by a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission about the original post on the basis of racial discrimination against both Jews and people of colour, both sighted by Sky News. Spokespeople for both the regulatory body and the commission said they could not comment. In submissions filed with the court, Dr Robinson alleges Ms Stoliar's repeated complaints represented a 'pattern of targeted harassment and cyberstalking… [including] doxxing, catfishing, intimidation, threats and online harassment' and a 'campaign to vilify and target [Dr Robinson] for her political views.' She claimed the initial post about Ms Stoliar was made on a 'private' Facebook group that had been created 'to share concerns about the humanitarian impact of the Gaza genocide'. Dr Robinson claimed her contracts with two of the healthcare providers had been terminated as a result of the 'targeted campaign', and that she has experienced 'ongoing fear for her safety and that of her children', 'professional isolation', and had been 'forced out of private practice and lost her admitting rights at the Epworth Hospital, resulting in the estimated loss of $80,000 per month in professional income.' An Epworth spokeswoman said the hospital 'does not comment on individual matters or proceedings before the court.' The doctor also claimed in the submissions that the 'reputational harm' she had suffered had led to the 'premature termination of a planned podcast series', losing her 'access to a growing audience and potential patient base.' She said since November last year, she had attended 'weekly psychological appointments' for 'ongoing distress' and 'significant anxiety and stress resulting from the Respondent's targeted campaign.' Ms Stoliar denies she was harassing Dr Robinson and questioned many of her claims. 'That's not harassment – that's me as a legal citizen of this country accessing my legal right to escalate concerns that I feel are justified,' she said. 'I wouldn't call it doxxing if something has already been posted online and I'm resharing. I don't have access to her personal information and as far as I'm aware, doxxing is about exposing personal, private information that is not publicly accessible. 'Maybe she's angry that I have chosen not to be silent about it, that I am actually someone who is speaking out about an injustice that I see needs to be dealt with. There needs to be accountability and I don't think she likes that.' Ms Stoliar says she, too, had received threats as a result of Dr Robinson's and other pro-Palestine activists' posts about her, some serious enough to force her to move home. In her second complaint to AHPRA, Ms Stoliar raised specific concerns about the safety of Dr Robinson's patients, writing: 'Dr Robinson's continued expression of hatred online is alarming, particularly in the context of her role in patient care.' 'I do have concerns for patients who are people of colour or patients who are Jewish, that if these are the views that she holds, where is the line between holding those views and acting on them, even subconsciously?' Ms Stoliar told Sky News. She says Dr Robinson's conduct is part of a much broader problem within the Australian healthcare industry of professionals openly sharing anti-Semitic views online. Sydney nurses Ahmad Rashad Nadir and Sarah Abu Lebdeh were stood down from their jobs with NSW Health and charged with various criminal offences after a video of the pair bragging about killing Israeli patients at Bankstown Hospital, in the city's southwest, went viral. Another Melbourne doctor, Mohamed Ghilan, last year resigned from Caulfield Hospital – in an area with a large Jewish population – after colleagues raised concerns over his 'racist and inflammatory' social media posts, which included praising Hamas and its former leader Yahya Sinwar. A dossier sent to Health Minister Mark Butler two years ago, compiled by 235 health professionals, detailed the pro-Hamas sentiment in social media posts by many of their colleagues but appears to never have been acted on. 'We have doctors celebrating what Hamas did on October 7, we have doctors celebrating what happened to Jews on the streets of Amsterdam,' Ms Stoliar said. 'Where is the outrage about that? 'Doctors, nurses, midwives openly sharing horrific views - anti-Semitic, Jew-hating views, quite disgusting comments on big social media [groups]… and there have been no consequences, there have been no repercussions, there have been no disciplinary action. 'They've been able to spew this unrestrained hate, this racism towards Jewish people. 'They're holding these biases within them and if we've progressed to the step where they're publicising it on social media - public platforms - when does that translate into clinical practice or subconscious mistakes when it comes to treating patients? 'This is my concern, not just about Dr Miranda Robinson, but about so many doctors who have high positions in Australia who have voiced comments online. 'We hold doctors to a higher standard in our society, something every doctor needs to come to terms with. That comes with the job, with the title, with the role and when you are celebrating the near-death of hundreds of Jewish people publicly [in the Netherlands], that is concerning, and I think that calls for an investigation into the emotional stability and the psychological stability of the person.' After Sky News began investigating this story, Dr Robinson's legal team made an offer to Ms Stoliar on Tuesday to 'withdraw' her application for the personal safety intervention order, citing 'media… enquiries'. The court confirmed the matter remained listed for Monday. 'I have refused to sign an undertaking based on the notion that I am harassing her by raising justified complaints with AHPRA,' Ms Stoliar said. 'I don't think I should be bullied into silence when there are things that need to be said or spoken and people need to be held accountable.' When Sky News called Dr Robinson to offer her an opportunity for an interview, she hung up. Her lawyer Bernadette Zaydan later sent a response to a series of questions, saying it was 'inappropriate for anyone to comment at this time, as the matter between the parties is before the court'. 'My client reserves all of her legal rights against Sky News, any journalist involved in their personal capacity and Ms Stoliar in relation to this matter,' Ms Zaydan warned.
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Would-be mothers to get ‘more transparency' on what egg-freezing may do
Fertility technology has leapt ahead since the first IVF birth in Australia in 1980, but one significant barrier for would-be mothers remains: age. One in 16 babies nationally is now born with the help of IVF, or 17,963 babies in 2022, but a key to likely success continues to be how old the woman is when her eggs are retrieved to create embryos, which some fertility specialists say is still not well enough understood. As the IVF industry undergoes heavy scrutiny and new regulation after devastating embryo bungles, claims of exaggerated success rates and expensive add-ons that are not clinically proven, scientists at one large provider have produced what they believe will give women 'more transparency' about egg freezing. The number of Australian women freezing their eggs, at a cost of $5000 to $10,000 a cycle, has increased dramatically in the past 10 years. Nearly 7000 women froze their eggs in 2022, up from 3642 in 2020, and multiple collection cycles are often recommended. There are more than 100,000 eggs frozen via 100 clinics nationally, but relatively few women have yet returned to use them, the primary reason being that women fall pregnant spontaneously, says longtime Monash University fertility researcher Karin Hammarberg. A large American study published in the journal Fertility and Sterility in 2022 found the pregnancy rate from frozen eggs is not as good as many women think, and some patients are overly optimistic. Loading Professor David Gardner, of Virtus Health and the University of Melbourne, has co-developed a calculation tool designed to provide evidence-based estimates of women's chance of having a baby with their thawed eggs, which is intended to help women decide if the process is for them, when to time it and how many cycles to have. The tool carries a disclaimer that women's medical profiles should be considered, but provides an overall estimate based on three data sets capturing final live birth rates from frozen eggs. Two of the studies are international and the third parcel of data is compiled from the known outcomes of 5180 thawed eggs in Australia – but not presented as a peer-reviewed study.
The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
Would-be mothers to get ‘more transparency' on what egg-freezing may do
Fertility technology has leapt ahead since the first IVF birth in Australia in 1980, but one significant barrier for would-be mothers remains: age. One in 16 babies nationally is now born with the help of IVF, or 17,963 babies in 2022, but a key to likely success continues to be how old the woman is when her eggs are retrieved to create embryos, which some fertility specialists say is still not well enough understood. As the IVF industry undergoes heavy scrutiny and new regulation after devastating embryo bungles, claims of exaggerated success rates and expensive add-ons that are not clinically proven, scientists at one large provider have produced what they believe will give women 'more transparency' about egg freezing. The number of Australian women freezing their eggs, at a cost of $5000 to $10,000 a cycle, has increased dramatically in the past 10 years. Nearly 7000 women froze their eggs in 2022, up from 3642 in 2020, and multiple collection cycles are often recommended. There are more than 100,000 eggs frozen via 100 clinics nationally, but relatively few women have yet returned to use them, the primary reason being that women fall pregnant spontaneously, says longtime Monash University fertility researcher Karin Hammarberg. A large American study published in the journal Fertility and Sterility in 2022 found the pregnancy rate from frozen eggs is not as good as many women think, and some patients are overly optimistic. Loading Professor David Gardner, of Virtus Health and the University of Melbourne, has co-developed a calculation tool designed to provide evidence-based estimates of women's chance of having a baby with their thawed eggs, which is intended to help women decide if the process is for them, when to time it and how many cycles to have. The tool carries a disclaimer that women's medical profiles should be considered, but provides an overall estimate based on three data sets capturing final live birth rates from frozen eggs. Two of the studies are international and the third parcel of data is compiled from the known outcomes of 5180 thawed eggs in Australia – but not presented as a peer-reviewed study.
