Abstract Objective This study aims to investigate the sleep quality of medical staff in a tertiary hospital, explore the influencing factors, and provide a reference for relevant departments to formulate policies that ensure the health of medical personnel. Methods In July 2024, a survey was conducted using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale among medical staff (mainly young and middle‐aged) in a tertiary hospital. The survey assessed their sleep quality, time to fall asleep, sleep disturbances, and daytime dysfunction. Results (1) Among the respondents, 528 (57.64%) had sleep disorders, whereas 388 (42.35%) did not. The overall sleep quality of the medical staff was poor, with a PSQI score of 9.65 ± 6.354. (2) Univariate analysis showed that sleep quality was significantly different across gender, exercise habits, and body mass index (BMI) ( p < 0.05). Memory decline was also statistically associated with poor sleep quality ( p < 0.05). (3) Sleep efficiency and sleep duration varied significantly across different age groups ( p < 0.05). (4) There were significant differences in subjective sleep quality among staff with different blood pressure control statuses ( p < 0.05). Additionally, medical staff with unhealthy habits, such as smoking and drinking, had significantly higher rates of sleep disorders ( p < 0.05). (5) The level of anxiety among healthcare workers is negatively correlated with sleep quality, whereas the duration (number) of exercise is positively correlated with sleep quality. Anxiety was identified as a primary factor affecting sleep quality. Conclusion The sleep quality of medical staff in this tertiary hospital is generally poor, especially among young and middle‐aged staff, married individuals, females, and those who smoke or drink. Anxiety was closely related to sleep disturbances among these healthcare workers. The hospital should intervene by addressing anxiety and other factors to improve the sleep quality of its medical staff, enhancing their work efficiency.
Jin et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: