Teens Oversleeping Post-Concussion May Have Worse Recovery
Kids and teens sleeping longer, even as little as an hour more, during the first week after a concussion were more likely to have worse cognitive and somatic symptoms. Sleeping longer was also linked to persistent symptoms and slower recovery.
METHODOLOGY:
Researchers used data from a randomized clinical trial that took place across three emergency pediatric departments in Ontario, Canada, over a 2-year period beginning in March 2017.
The study included 291 kids and teens between the ages of 10 and 18 years (median age, 13.2 years; 44% female) who received treatment for a concussion within 48 hours of injury.
Each patient wore an accelerometer on their waist 24 hours a day for 2 weeks and completed sleep logs to monitor sleep patterns.
Symptoms were tracked using the Health and Behavior Inventory (HBI), a questionnaire that measures cognitive and somatic symptoms at 1 , 2 , and 4 weeks following their concussion.
Symptom change was measured using conservative (z score ≥ 1.65) and liberal (z score ≥ 1.28) cutoffs; estimates were measured in HBI units.
TAKEAWAY:
Kids and teens who slept 10.5 vs 9.5 hours per night during the first week after a concussion had higher symptom scores at 1 week (estimate, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.25-2.28).
Longer sleep duration was linked to higher odds of persisting symptoms at 4 weeks (conservative: odds ratio [OR], 1.73; 95% CI, 0.91-3.26; liberal: OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.07-3.47).
Teens who slept 10.9 vs 9.9 hours were more likely to have increased symptoms at 4 weeks (estimate, 2.2; 95% CI, 0.85-3.47).
IN PRACTICE:
'Long sleep duration may be associated with increased odds of being reliably symptomatic at 4 weeks, therefore a greater risk of PSAC [persisting symptoms after a concussion],' the study authors wrote. 'Clinicians should monitor youths' sleep after concussion.'
SOURCE:
This study was led by Lauren Butterfield, MSc, of the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute in Ottawa, Canada. It was published online on June 18 in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The HBI used for symptom assessment is not validated for youths older than 16.99 years, and 16 participants were older than 17 years. Recruitment from three Canadian pediatric emergency departments may have introduced sampling bias.
DISCLOSURES:
Various study authors reported receiving stipend support, research grants, and travel awards from the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Canadian Concussion Network, among others.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The bedtime habit that's saving relationships
The bedtime habit that's saving relationships It often begins with a battle. Not over toothpaste caps, late-night texts, or who left the lights on. No, the real culprit is the seemingly innocent, but ever-shrinking duvet. In the darkness, couples engage in a silent nightly war. Tug. Twist. Reclaim. Repeat. The collateral damage is frayed patience, poor rest, and, if science is to be believed, something even more serious. Health. The Sleep Research Society reports that up to 30% of a person's sleep quality is dictated by their partner's sleep patterns, from erratic tossing to temperature shifts and seemingly criminal blanket theft. Meanwhile, a review in Sleep Medicine Reviews found that couples in conflict (not necessarily from arguments, but from unrest) experience significantly shorter, more disrupted sleep cycles. And the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warns that chronic lack of quality rest can increase the risk of diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and depression. In other words, this really isn't just about comfort. The way people share (or don't share) the covers can impact well-being. This is why couples worldwide are quietly turning to a decades-old Nordic custom that redefines what it means to share a bed. Luxury loungewear retailer Lunya explains the Scandinavian Sleep Method. What Is the Scandinavian Sleep Method? For couples in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, the concept isn't revolutionary. It's simply how people sleep. One bed. Two duvets. Better sleep on both sides of the bed. Instead of treating a single blanket as a symbol of romantic unity, Scandinavian couples embrace separate duvets as a practical act of mutual respect. One partner runs hot, the other cold. One prefers the weighted embrace of down, the other wants a barely-there layer. The method acknowledges a universal truth: comfort isn't one size fits all. Relationship therapists have likened it to the sleep equivalent of separate bathroom sinks. Think of it not as an act of division, but a strategy for harmony. And sleep experts agree. Dr. Michael Gradisar, head of sleep science at Sleep Cycle, notes that nearly one-third of nighttime disruptions come from a partner's movement alone, a problem drastically reduced by adopting two separate duvets. 'Separate covers don't drive couples apart,' says one sleep psychologist. 'They allow partners to sleep deeply, and paradoxically, connect more.' The result? Less resentment. More rest. And, for many, a relationship that functions better both in and out of the bedroom. Why the Shared Blanket Isn't Always Romantic In the U.S., the single shared duvet remains a cultural marker of intimacy. A cozy, cinematic shorthand for 'look at us, we're in sync.' But reality paints a different picture. Someone inevitably wakes up freezing and disgruntled while their partner cocoons in comfort, leaving a wake of micro-aggressions. You know the ones. A pointed sigh, a sharp yank, a not-so-subtle shift to the edge of the mattress. Sleep psychologists consistently rank co-sleeping disturbances like snoring, body heat, shifting, cover-hogging among the top contributors to poor rest. And yet, couples endure it, fearing that separating duvets suggests a relationship on the rocks. But as Scandinavian couples have quietly known for generations, sometimes the real marker of closeness is giving each other space. How to Make It Look (and Feel) Effortless Adopting two duvets doesn't mean resigning your bedroom to an austere, mismatched fate. Scandinavian households have perfected the art of making a double-duvet bed look intentional. One common layout: Fold each duvet lengthwise, lay them side-by-side, and face the openings outward. The result is symmetrical and quietly elegant, evoking the precision of origami. Another approach is to fold the second duvet and drape it across the foot of the bed like an accent throw. To visitors, it's just a decorative touch; at night, it's your secret weapon for uninterrupted rest. Prefer top sheets? Keep one for your side. Duvet purist? Skip it. The method isn't prescriptive, it's adaptive. 'The Scandinavian Sleep Method isn't a trend or a look,' says one sleep consultant. 'It's a sensibility: intentional, functional, and quietly luxurious.' How to Start Sleeping, Scandi-Style Getting started is simple. If you share a queen or king-sized mattress, pick up two twin-sized duvets. Breathable and temperature-regulating options work best to avoid overheating in your private cocoon. Place them side by side so they meet in the middle, or overlap slightly for a seamless look. Then, personalize. Weighted on one side, airy linen on the other. Matching covers for cohesion, or complementary tones for contrast. The point isn't to match preferences; it's to respect them. Not a Breakup, But Relationship Maintenance For the uninitiated, separate duvets may feel like a metaphor for growing apart. But for many, it's the opposite. Quality sleep leads to improved mood, greater patience, and yes, more interest in physical intimacy. In short, better rest makes people better partners. Separate duvets aren't about distancing from each other. They're about closing the distance between how people live, love, and rest. In a culture that equates sacrifice with devotion, the Scandinavian Sleep Method suggests a softer truth. Maybe you don't need to compromise your sleep to prove your love. Maybe you can each have your own cover and still wake up tangled together, anyway. This story was produced by Lunya and reviewed and distributed by Stacker. Solve the daily Crossword
CNN
40 minutes ago
- CNN
In break with current CDC recommendations, American Academy of Pediatrics recommends Covid-19 shots for young children
Source: CNN The American Academy of Pediatrics released its updated recommendations for vaccines on Tuesday, including Covid-19 shots for infants and young children – a break from the current US for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations. 'It differs from recent recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the CDC, which was overhauled this year and replaced with individuals who have a history of spreading vaccine misinformation,' the AAP said in a news release. Current CDC recommendations for the Covid-19 vaccine for children ages 6 months to 17 years should be 'based on shared clinical decision-making,' the agency says. The AAP recommendations are more explicit. It says that all children ages 6 through 23 months should receive a Covid-19 vaccine unless they have known allergies to the vaccine or its ingredients. It also recommends a single dose of the vaccine for children ages 2 through 18 years if they are at high risk of Covid-19, residents of long-term care facilities, have never been vaccinated against Covid-19, or live in a household with people who are high risk for Covid-19. It also says that the vaccine should be available for this age group even if they are not in these risk groups. AAP has provided vaccine recommendations and published its own vaccine schedule throughout its nearly century-long history. But it has not traditionally diverged from federal recommendations. Other groups – including the Vaccine Integrity Project, a group of outside public health experts – have also been independently reviewing data on vaccines out of concern for vaccine misinformation and access under current federal health leadership. Tension between AAP and those driving federal health policy has been running high for months, particularly around changes to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP. AAP has long been a liaison to ACIP, participating in meeting discussions and analyzing research in workgroups behind the scenes. But AAP chose not to participate in the ACIP meeting in June – the first since health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. dismissed all 17 members of the expert panel, replacing them with seven new ones. Dr. Sean O'Leary, chair of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases, said at the time that AAP liaisons to ACIP did not participate in the meeting 'because we view it as illegitimate.' 'What we heard in this meeting was really a false narrative that the current vaccine policies are flawed and that they need fixing,' he said. In August, AAP was one of roughly 30 medical and public health organizations that were formally sidelined from their roles as ACIP liaisons and told by email that they could no longer participate in the committee's crucial workgroups. The email called the liaison members 'special interest groups' that are 'expected to have a 'bias' based on their constituency and/or population they represent.' Vaccine recommendations from ACIP have statutory implications. Under the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies are required to cover vaccines for adults if they've been recommended by ACIP. The committee also votes on whether vaccines should be added to the federal Vaccines for Children program, which provides vaccines to children who would not otherwise be able to afford them. In Tuesday's news release, AAP urged insurance providers to cover the vaccines that are included in their schedule. 'The AAP will continue to provide recommendations for immunizations that are rooted in science and are in the best interest of the health of infants, children and adolescents,' AAP President Dr. Susan J. Kressly in the said in the news release. 'Pediatricians know how important routine childhood immunizations are in keeping children, families and their communities healthy and thriving.' The AAP also issued updated recommendations for RSV and flu vaccines, in addition to more than 10 other vaccines. The US Department of Health and Human Services responded to the AAP's immunization schedule by calling on the agency to 'strengthen conflict-of-interest safeguards and keep its publications free from financial influence.' 'The American people deserve confidence that medical recommendations are based solely on science and public health,' HHS communications director Andrew Nixon wrote in a statement. 'Instead, the AAP is undermining national immunization policymaking with baseless political attacks. Secretary Kennedy has stood firm in his commitment to science, transparency, and restoring public trust. By bypassing the CDC's advisory process and freelancing its own recommendations, while smearing those who demand accountability, the AAP is putting commercial interests ahead of public health and politics above America's children.' In response to HHS' comments, AAP continued to emphasize its commitment to evidence-based recommendations. 'AAP created its vaccine schedule based on the health of children and the evidence showing how vaccines support their immune systems, so they can stay healthy and do all the things we want children to be able to do,' Kressly said in a statement. 'The Academy has been making vaccine recommendations for over 90 years, longer than ACIP has been in existence, and we remain committed to supporting children's access to vaccines,' she said. 'AAP's recommendations are based only in the science, the needs of children, and the care that pediatricians have for the children in every community.' The Vaccine Integrity Project on Tuesday presented data from its independent review of thousands of research papers assessing the safety and effectiveness of Covid-19, flu and RSV vaccines. The evidence it found is 'very consistent' with the latest recommendations from the AAP, said Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota and leader of the new initiative. 'Let me just be clear: We've looked at this very carefully, and there simply is no scientific evidence to support the change that HHS made to the Covid [vaccine] recommendations for pregnant women or for children most at risk for high-risk transmission or severe disease,' Osterholm said. 'Over the last few months, we've seen policy changes by federal officials based on evidence that has been shown as flawed, analytically fraught or flat out wrong. It's vital that providers and the public continue to have vaccine information they can rely on,' he said. Analyses by the Vaccine Integrity Project are ongoing, with more information to be shared in the coming weeks as the US quickly approaches respiratory virus season. Other changes may make access to vaccines difficult in other ways this fall. The US Food and Drug Administration has said it may limit future Covid-19 shots to older people and those who are at high risk for serious infection, and may not renew authorization for Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine for children younger than 5 years old. CNN's Brenda Goodman, Sarah Owermohle and Meg Tirrell contributed to this report. See Full Web Article
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Pediatricians' association recommends COVID-19 vaccines for toddlers and some older children, breaking with CDC guidance
For 30 years, vaccine recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have aligned closely with those from the American Academy of Pediatrics, or AAP. But on Aug. 19, 2025, the AAP published new vaccine recommendations that diverge from those of the CDC. The pediatrician association's move comes on the heels of unprecedented changes made earlier this year by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as head of the Department of Health and Human Services, in how the government approves and issues guidance on vaccines. The biggest difference is in the AAP's guidance around COVID-19 vaccines for children. This new guidance comes as COVID-19 cases are once again rising across the U.S. and many parents and providers are confused by unclear guidance from federal health authorities about whether children should be vaccinated. In a Q&A with The Conversation U.S., David Higgins, a pediatrician, preventive medicine physician and vaccine delivery researcher from the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, explains the new guidance and what it means for parents. Higgins is also a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics. What are the AAP's new vaccine recommendations? The AAP recommends that all children 6 to 23 months old receive a complete COVID-19 vaccine series, consistent with recommendations for this age group in previous years. For children and adolescents ages 2 to 18, the AAP now advises a single dose if they are at higher risk, a change from previous years, when vaccination was recommended for all in this age group. Children at higher risk include those who have certain chronic medical conditions, who live in long-term care or group settings, who have never been vaccinated, or who live with family members at high risk. The AAP also recommends that COVID-19 vaccines remain available for any child or adolescent whose parent wants them to be protected, regardless of risk status. In all cases, the most updated version of the vaccine should be used. How do these recommendations differ from CDC guidance? The difference is substantial. The CDC currently advises what it calls 'shared clinical decision-making' for children ages 6 months to 17 years who are not moderately or severely immunocompromised. This means the decision is left up to individual discussions between families and their health care providers, but the vaccine is not treated as a routine recommendation. These current guidelines were made after Kennedy bypassed the agency's normal independent review process. That framework can be confusing for families and difficult for providers to implement. By contrast, the AAP recommendations identify the ages and conditions where the risk is highest while also supporting vaccine availability for any families who want it. Why are they diverging? The AAP has been publishing vaccine guidance since the 1930s, long before the CDC or the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, an independent panel of experts that advises the CDC, existed. Since 1995, the two groups have generally issued essentially identical vaccine guidance. But this year, the federal government dismissed the advisory committee's panel of independent scientists and immunization experts, raising questions about the credibility of CDC guidance. At the same time, misinformation about vaccines continues to spread. In response, the AAP decided to publish independent recommendations based on its own review of the latest evidence. That review showed that although the risks for healthy older children have declined compared with the early years of the pandemic, young children and those with specific conditions remain especially vulnerable. Additionally, a review of evidence by an independent expert group called the Vaccine Integrity Project, also released on Aug. 19, 2025, confirmed that there are no new safety concerns and no decline in the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. COVID-19 continues to cause hospitalizations and deaths in children and remains a leading cause of serious respiratory illness. Will parents be able to follow these recommendations? This is still unclear. The AAP recommendations do not automatically guarantee insurance coverage. By law, insurance plans and the federal Vaccines for Children program, which provides vaccines for eligible children who might not otherwise be vaccinated due to cost or lack of insurance, are tied to Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations. Unless insurers and policymakers act to align with the AAP recommendations, there is a risk that parents would be forced to pay the costs out of pocket. Vaccine supply may also be an issue. Currently, only two COVID-19 vaccines are available for children under 12. Moderna's vaccine is approved only for children with at least one high-risk condition, while Pfizer's authorization for younger children may not be renewed. If that happens, any remaining Pfizer doses for this age group may be unusable, leaving a shortfall in available vaccines for children. Finally, implementation may differ depending on the type of provider. Some vaccine providers, such as pharmacists, operate under policies tied strictly to CDC recommendations, which may make it harder to follow AAP's schedule unless rules are updated. What happens next? Parents and providers are likely to face continued confusion, just as COVID-19 cases rise as children return to school. Much will depend on whether the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices updates its own recommendations at its upcoming meeting, expected in September, and whether pediatric COVID-19 vaccines remain available. Until then, parents can speak with their pediatricians to understand the best protection for their children. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: David Higgins, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus Read more: COVID-19 vaccines for kids are mired in uncertainty amid conflicting federal guidance RFK Jr. says annual COVID-19 shots no longer advised for healthy children and pregnant women – a public health expert explains the new guidance RFK Jr's shakeup of vaccine advisory committee raises worries about scientific integrity of health recommendations David Higgins volunteers as Vice President of the Colorado Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics and as a board member of Immunize Colorado. He was not involved in the development or publication of the American Academy of Pediatrics' immunization guidelines. The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely his own and do not represent those of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Solve the daily Crossword
