Search

Individuals vary in how their circadian system synchronizes with the cyclic environment (zeitgeber). Assessing these differences in “phase of entrainment”—often referred to as chronotype—is an important procedure in laboratory experiments and epidemiological studies but is also increasingly applied in circadian medicine, both in diagnosis and therapy. While biochemical measurements (e.g., dim-light melatonin onset [DLMO]) of internal time are still the gold standard, they are laborious, expensive, and mostly rely on special conditions (e.g., dim light). Chronotype estimation in the form of questionnaires is useful in approximating the timing of an individual’s circadian clock. They are simple, inexpensive, and location independent (e.g., administrable on- and offline) and can therefore be easily administered to many individuals. The Munich ChronoType Questionnaire (MCTQ) is an established instrument to assess chronotype by asking subjects about their sleep-wake-behavior. Here we present a shortened version of the MCTQ, the µMCTQ, for use in situations in which instrument length is critical, such as in large cohort studies. The µMCTQ contains only the core chronotype module of the standard MCTQ (stdMCTQ), which was shortened and adapted from 17 to 6 essential questions, allowing for a quick assessment of chronotype and other related parameters such as social jetlag and sleep duration. µMCTQ results correspond well to the ones collected by the stdMCTQ and are externally validated by actimetry and DLMO, assessed at home (no measure of compliance). Sleep onset, midpoint of sleep, and the µMCTQ-derived marker of chronotype showed slight deviations toward earlier times in the µMCTQ when compared with the stdMCTQ (

The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) is the most common measure of sleep quality. Its questions refer to "usual" sleep habits during the last month. Considering how different sleep-wake behavior can be between workdays and work-free days, we hypothesized that sleep quality should show similar differences. We investigated these potential differences in a cross-sectional online study using the original and two adapted versions of the PSQI that replaced "usual" by explicitly referring to sleep on workdays or work-free days. Additionally, we investigated how these scores relate to chronotype and social jetlag assessed by the Munich ChronoType Questionnaire. Participants were recruited online, they had to be older than 18 years, following regular weekly work schedules, and they should not be shift workers. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compare the three different versions of the PSQI (usual, work, and work-free). To find out whether PSQI score differences could be predicted by chronotype and/or social jetlag a mediation analysis was carried out. Workday PSQI scores were similar to the original "usual" scores, two points higher than the PSQI score on work-free days and above the cutoff designating poor sleep quality. PSQI components and time variables also differed between workdays and work-free days. Chronotype correlated with the difference between PSQI scores on workdays and on work-free days, an association mediated by social jetlag. Our results suggest that the original PSQI predominantly reports sleep quality on workdays and that work schedules may affect sleep quality. The mediation of social jetlag on the association of chronotype and PSQI score differences could mean that not chronotype per se, but rather the collision of an individuals' chronotype with fixed work schedules explains the differences between sleep on workdays and work-free days. Understanding how sleep quality differs between workdays and work-free days, how this difference can adequately be assessed through directing participants to focus on their sleep specifically on workdays vs. work-free days, and how circadian factors modulate this difference, is crucial to improve sleep quality.