Tying Alcohol to Poor Sleep to Discourage Drinking
Welcome to Impact Factor , your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I'm Dr F. Perry Wilson from the Yale School of Medicine.
You may not have realized it yet, but we are full-on in the era of biofeedback. I remember a few years ago when my smartwatch started reporting on my heart rate variability during sleep.
To be honest, I didn't even know what this metric really meant. But I did notice something fairly early on. On nights when I drank alcohol, my heart rate variability went down.
Human brains are really good at linking pieces of data like that, and I kept an eye on it, with additional nights of drinking or not drinking and more reports of heart rate variability only strengthening the association. This is not unique to me, of course — multiple studies have demonstrated the link between alcohol and decreased parasympathetic tone, which is the thing that causes the decrease in heart rate variability.
But for me, it was the first time I really saw a physiologic consequence of alcohol intake right before my eyes. Sure, everyone has had a hangover, but this phenomenon was there even if I had only had a glass of wine and felt fine waking up.
And it had an effect on me. There was something about seeing that number — maybe it's my competitive nature — that made me want to improve it. I guess the behavioral scientists might call this gamification, but whatever you want to call it, the net-net was that I started drinking less.
This is the power of biofeedback: You get information about your physiologic state to make the effects of your actions more real. And, with wearable devices now ubiquitous, it seems like the perfect time to test whether anecdotes like mine hold up in the real world. We got a randomized trial to answer that question just last week.
I'm thinking about my wearable device this week because of this study, appearing in JAMA Network Open, examining the complex relationship between alcohol use and sleep in a population of 120 young adults aged 18-25. Full disclosure: This was a study out of Yale, but I was not involved in any way.
The researchers, led by Lisa Fucito, wanted to test whether biofeedback — in this case, making explicit the link between alcohol intake and sleep quality — could modify alcohol use behavior.
Let's digress for a minute to talk about alcohol and sleep. There is something of a two-way street here. In general, alcohol use decreases the quality of sleep; you wake up more, sleep less, and have less restful sleep overall. But bad sleep can also influence alcohol intake. After a poor night's sleep you have less self-control, less discernment — you might make worse decisions — and none of that is conducive to saying 'no thanks I've had enough' when someone is offering you a shot at the local watering hole.
To track alcohol intake and sleep quality, the researchers strapped two wearable devices on to each participant. The first was a sleep actigraphy monitor — basically a device that can tell how much you sleep, how deeply, the quality, and so on. The second device was an alcohol monitor. You may have heard of this 'SCRAM' technology that police sometimes use to ensure someone isn't drinking. It samples the alcohol we excrete in our sweat.
While every participant wore these devices for 2 weeks, only half of them were given the information the devices provided. The rest were divided into two control groups. One group was given some web-based information about the importance of sleep, and the other group received the same web-based information but were also asked to keep a diary of their drinking behavior and subjective sleep quality.
The intervention group is the interesting one here, of course. At the end of week 1 and 2, a trained coach reviewed each participant's data with them. They showed them their blood alcohol content, their sleep data, and crunched this all into clear numbers like the ones you see here.
This participant can see that on their non-drinking nights, their sleep quality is better than on their drinking nights.
So, with my personal anecdotal data as a guide, this intervention must clearly have led to decreased drinking, right? Well, sort of. But not really.
This is the number of drinks per week at each of four time points. Remember, the intervention only lasted for the first 2 weeks. The primary outcome was the number of drinks at week 12.
You can see quite clearly an interesting effect; all three groups drank less over time. The intervention with the cool biofeedback, the people who just kept a drinking diary, even the people who got the web-based sleep information program. Everyone.
This is actually a classic finding in studies like this known as the Hawthorne effect. It occurs when individuals change their behavior because they are aware they are being studied. You see it in all kinds of behavioral intervention studies. If they know you're watching, people are more likely to wash their hands, leave a tip, hold a door for a stranger. It's powerful. But it's also short lived. When the study is over, people tend to go back to their old behavior.
Unfortunately, this makes it tough to assess the intervention itself. Perhaps it really would work in the real world, when big brother isn't watching, but we can't tell in the world of a clinical trial because all the guinea pigs know they are guinea pigs.
That said, some of the secondary outcomes were positive. The intervention group had lower rates of sleep impairment and sleep disturbance. That's an odd finding since we know this improvement couldn't have been mediated by less alcohol drinking. Maybe feedback about your sleep quality makes you change other things independent of alcohol? Maybe you're just a bit more mindful about the whole thing?
We should also remember that these were all 18 to 25-year-olds. I don't want to sound like an old fogey here, but I will say that I think I was well into my 30s before I took a hard look at some of my less than healthy behaviors and started to make real changes. There are a lot of other pressures on these young adults. Cutting back on drinking may just not be the most important thing to them at this point in their life.
So, no, I'm not ready to give up on biofeedback as an agent of behavior change. I still think this area is promising, but we may need to come up with some more clever ways to study it. For now, I'm keeping an eye on my heart rate variability at night; I am a data guy after all. It may not work for everyone, but it works for me, and if it works for you, then that's good enough.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
20 hours ago
- Medscape
Pediatric Sleep Screener Boosts Diagnoses, Referrals
Children's poor sleep is associated with obesity, academic problems, suicide attempts, and other mental health concerns, but the issue is not consistently addressed in pediatric primary care. A new well-child-visit screening tool for primary care clinicians (PCCs) appears to help boost diagnosis and referrals, according to findings from a study published in JAMA Network Open . Ariel A. Williamson, PhD, with The Ballmer Institute for Children's Behavioral Health, University of Oregon, Portland, Oregon, and colleagues tested an electronic, age-based sleep screener that evaluated infant bed sharing, snoring three nights a week, short sleep time, perceived sleep problems, and adolescent daytime sleepiness. The researchers conducted a retrospective, observational case-control study in the Children's Hospital of Pennsylvania primary care network of 31 practices in Pennsylvania and New Jersey; 27 in suburban/rural settings and four in metropolitan settings. During implementation, 204,872 patients completed the screening, with adoption in 89.5% of all well-child visits. The screening indicated that 9.7% of patients had frequent snoring, 12.2% had sleep problems, and 34.4% had insufficient sleep. Bed sharing was reported for 6.5% of infants and 14.7% of adolescents reported daytime sleepiness. The identification of sleep problems was followed by provision of family education resources. Sleep Disorder Diagnosis 64% More Likely With Screener Compared with the pre-implementation period, at well-child visits with a completed sleep screener, PCCs were significantly more likely to make a sleep disorder diagnosis (odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% CI, 1.56-1.73), order a polysomnogram (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 2.32-3.20), and refer to sleep clinics (OR, 6.48; 95% CI, 5.03-8.34) or otolaryngology (OR, 4.46; 95% CI, 3.95-5.02). Rupali Drewek, MD, a pediatric pulmonologist and co-medical director of the Sleep Medicine Program at Phoenix Children's in Phoenix, who was not involved with the study, told Medscape Medical News the screener is promising and its proactive approach — even in children with no obvious symptoms — allows for earlier intervention and improved quality of life. 'Sleep problems affect up to half of children at some point,' she said, 'yet they are rarely addressed unless parents bring them up. Implementing a standardized screening tool during routine pediatric visits ensures systematic identification of issues that might otherwise go unnoticed. Taking action early can lead to better health, better school performance, and less stress for families and the healthcare system.' Adding a new screening tool should fit easily into a regular checkup without slowing workflow substantially, she said. 'It offers a scalable, low‑cost solution to reach millions of children.' Educating the medical team will be important to successful implementation, she said. 'Everyone on the care team needs to know how to read the results and what to do next if a child's answers show there might be a sleep problem.' Lessening Healthcare Inequities In an accompanying editorial, Sarah M. Honaker, PhD, with the Department of Pediatrics at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, and Stephen M. Downs, MD, MS, with the Department of Pediatrics, Wake Forest University in Winston Salem, North Carolina, said the screener, 'offers a refreshing departure from this pattern of asking PCCs to know more and do more. [T]his is an opportune time to study the implementation of systems that will support PCCs in providing evidence-based care.' The editorialists wrote that the broad screening at well-child visits could help lessen healthcare inequities. They noted that children from minoritized backgrounds with a lower socioeconomic status are more likely, for instance, to have obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and are less likely to receive timely, evidence-based care. 'For example, Black children are two to four times more likely to have OSA and less likely to receive a [polysomnogram] referral,' they wrote. One of the main unanswered questions, Honaker and Downs wrote, is how much the educational components help once the problems have been identified and whether guidance about sleep duration results in actual improvements in sleep duration. A key strength of the work is replicability in other health systems, with individual adaptations, the editorialists noted. '[T]he system designed by Williamson and colleagues offers an excellent starting point for other healthcare systems seeking to support PCCs in prevention, identification, and management of pediatric sleep disruption,' they wrote. Williamson reported receiving honoraria from the National Sleep Foundation, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and Wesleyan University and an honorarium and travel support from The Pennsylvania State University, outside the submitted work. This study was supported by the Possibilities Project at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Honaker reported receiving consulting fees from Covington LLC; grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; equity ownership of For Dreamers LLC; and grants from the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation outside the submitted work. Downs reported that he is the co-creator of the Child Health Improvement through Computer Automation (CHICA) software and cofounder of Digital Health Solutions LLC, which licenses CHICA. Drewek reported no relevant financial relationships.
UPI
a day ago
- UPI
New study highlights inconsistencies in defining long COVID
The medical field still lacks a clear answer as to what constitutes long COVID, despite hundreds of published studies and millions of sufferers worldwide, a new study says. File Photo by Shou Sheng/EPA Do you suspect you have long COVID, but aren't sure? The answer you get will largely hinge on whom you ask, a new study says. The medical field still lacks a clear answer as to what constitutes long COVID, despite hundreds of published studies and millions of sufferers worldwide, researchers reported Tuesday in JAMA Network Open. The definition of long COVID varies so widely that the percentage of people identified as having the ailment can differ dramatically, making it harder to properly diagnose and treat patients, researchers said. "The findings highlight the need for a standard definition for long COVID," lead researcher Lauren Wisk, an assistant professor of medicine at UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine, said in a news release. A number of major organizations like the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have advanced their own definitions for long COVID, but none has stuck and all feature some flaws, researchers said in background notes. For example, the National Academies' definition, released in 2024, is extremely broad and does not require lab confirmation that a person actually had an initial COVID-19 infection, researchers said. For the study, researchers applied five published long COVID definitions from previous studies to a group of more than 4,500 COVID patients being tracked as part of an ongoing research project. The prior studies took place in the U.S., U.K., Netherlands, Sweden and Puerto Rico. The five definitions differed by symptom duration, ranging from four weeks to six months, researchers said. The definition also varied by the number of potential symptoms, from nine to as many as 44. The percentage of patients with long COVID varied from 15% to 42%, depending on which definition had been used, results showed. These differences can lead doctors to miss legitimate long COVID cases while misdiagnosing others who actually don't have the syndrome, said senior researcher Dr. Joann Elmore, a professor at David Geffen School of Medicine. "Without a shared definition, we risk mislabeling patients and misguiding care," she said in a news release. "This is more than an academic debate -- it affects real people." These differences are also hampering medicine's ability to figure out long COVID, Wisk said. "If every study on long COVID uses a different definition for identifying who has it, the scientific conclusions become harder to compare across studies and may lead to delays in our understanding of it," she said. "In the absence of an objective measure, like a blood test, or a uniform standard for measuring long COVID, researchers and clinicians will need to decide which definition is best suited for their scientific question and be more transparent about the potential limitations of using a more versus less restrictive definition," Wisk added. More information The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more on long COVID. Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.
Politico
2 days ago
- Politico
Long Covid's lingering financial side effects
LONG COVID'S TOLL — More than five years after the Covid-19 pandemic first ravaged the nation, many Americans are still dealing with the social and economic fallout of having contracted the disease. People with long Covid — those who have new or persistent symptoms lasting three months past infection — have experienced worse financial and employment outcomes, lasting up to three years after their initial infection, compared with people who haven't had the disease, according to a study published Tuesday in JAMA Network Open from researchers at Rush University Medical Center, Yale School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and other research institutions. Long Covid patients reported worse work impairment, missed work and financial distress compared with those who never had Long Covid, the study found. Vaccination against Covid was associated with improved work and economic outcomes. Not just physical: 'While much of the focus in Long COVID research has been on the medical impact, we must also consider the sustained financial burden faced by those whose symptoms persist,' lead author Michael Gottlieb, an emergency medicine doctor and vice chair of research at Rush, said in a statement. Addressing the financial burden of long Covid might 'require policy interventions, such as expanded disability benefits or workplace accommodations to help combat the work and financial impact of this condition,' the authors wrote. The researchers analyzed self-reported data from more than 3,600 participants in the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry, a CDC-funded initiative aimed at better understanding Covid's long-term effects. Why it matters: About 6 percent of U.S. adults suffer from some form of long Covid, according to CDC estimates. The National Institutes of Health believes that as many as 23 million people have the illness, which can range in severity from mild to debilitating. The symptoms, which can include fatigue, headaches and brain fog, can be life-disrupting for many patients. Some treatments, like Paxlovid, have shown promise in reducing symptoms, but being diagnosed and finding suitable treatment can be difficult because of the disease's wide range of symptoms that often overlap with other conditions. HHS recently shut down its long Covid office, a casualty of the Trump administration's sweeping reorganization of the agency. At the time the closure was announced, an HHS employee who worked on long Covid and who was granted anonymity to share details of the move told POLITICO that abandoning work that could have cured the disease means the country's health care system will have to provide years, if not decades, of costly care for tens of millions of chronically ill people. In March, the Trump administration also canceled dozens of grants for long Covid projects, but some funding was restored after advocates fought back. WELCOME TO WEDNESDAY PULSE. I'm still reeling from Taylor Swift announcing her new album. Send your Swiftie theories, scoops and feedback to khooper@ and sgardner@ and follow along @kelhoops and @sophie_gardnerj. At the Agencies LOOMER'S LATEST PREY — After successfully ousting several members of Trump's administration for alleged insufficient loyalty, far-right activist and MAGA influencer Laura Loomer tells our colleagues at Playbook that she has her next target: Stefanie Spear, the principal deputy chief of staff and senior counselor to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The reason why, in part: 'I think that there's a clear intention by Stefanie Spear to utilize her position to try to lay the groundwork for a 2028 RFK presidential run,' Loomer alleges. Asked for comment by Playbook, a senior HHS official did not deny that Kennedy is weighing a presidential bid. Read the full story in this morning's Playbook. CDC LATEST — CDC officials held a tense all-hands meeting Tuesday in the aftermath of last week's shooting at the agency's Atlanta headquarters, Sophie reports with POLITICO's Amanda Friedman and Lauren Gardner. The meeting came as law enforcement officials revealed early Tuesday additional information about the nature of the shooting: The man who opened fire at the agency on Friday died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound and was motivated by his distrust of Covid-19 vaccines. Agency update: At the CDC's all-hands meeting, Director Susan Monarez thanked employees for their work and acknowledged that 'misinformation can be dangerous,' according to a live transcript obtained by POLITICO. 'In moments like this, we must meet the challenges with rational, evidence-based discourse spoken with compassion and understanding,' she said. 'That is how we will lead.' CDC employees were closely watching Monarez at the meeting to see how she would respond to the shooting and the news that the suspected shooter had expressed distrust of the Covid vaccine. Two CDC employees, granted anonymity to speak candidly, told POLITICO that Monarez's speech was not what they'd hoped. '[Twenty minutes] of reading off a teleprompter,' one of the employees said in a text, adding that Monarez's remarks prompted an 'overwhelmingly negative response from folks in my immediate orbit.' Another agency employee said the meeting was in stark contrast to a separate meeting held for the CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases staff on Saturday, where employees could ask Monarez questions. What's next: HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said that staff would have 'continued opportunities' to voice their perspectives to CDC leadership in the days ahead. 'Friday's shooting was a traumatic event for the agency, and leadership is working to provide continued updates along with resources for healing and recovery,' Nixon said in a statement. DOGE SAVINGS — The Trump administration has drastically exaggerated how much money it has saved through DOGE-related cuts to federal contracts, including at health agencies, according to an analysis of public data and federal spending records from POLITICO's Jessie Blaeser. Through July, DOGE said it had saved taxpayers $52.8 billion by canceling contracts, but of the $32.7 billion in actual claimed contract savings that POLITICO could verify, DOGE's savings over that period were closer to $1.4 billion. Despite the administration's claims, none of that $1.4 billion will lower the federal deficit unless Congress steps in. Instead, the money has been returned to agencies mandated by law to spend it. The health claims: Under the VA, DOGE's wall of receipts reported savings of $932 million from contracts canceled through June, including awards for a cancer registry, suicide-prevention services and other health care support. Federal records show the VA recovered just $132 million from the awards, or less than 15 percent of what DOGE claimed, and that the VA reinstated the contract for suicide-prevention support. One of DOGE's largest savings claims is from a canceled contract for a shelter in Pecos, Texas, to house unaccompanied migrant children. In a post on social media platform X in February, DOGE said HHS 'paid ~$18M/month' to keep the now-empty center open. Canceling the agreement, it said, would translate to more than $215 million in annual savings for taxpayers. By the time the contract was added to the DOGE termination list, that savings claim skyrocketed to $2.9 billion. But HHS and its Office of Refugee Resettlement were not on track to spend anywhere close to the contract's $3.3 billion ceiling. WHAT WE'RE READING POLITICO's Tyler Katzenberger reports on a federal judge blocking the Trump administration from using Medicaid beneficiaries' personal data for immigration enforcement purposes. Bloomberg Law's Celine Castronuovo reports on Texas' attorney general accusing Eli Lilly of unlawfully pushing providers to prescribe its blockbuster obesity drugs and other treatments to receive Medicaid payments.
