I'd expect that too many people apply for most units for it to be worth that much effort to game. A quick search indicates that 40-500 people might apply for a unit. If it takes someone several years to successfully apply after they are eligible, that doubles the lost earnings. They also can't resell the unit for several decades, so they are locked in for a long time. The option value of moving in the next 40 years seems significant.
Sounds possible, though most people who snore don't have sleep apnea.
I'm curious if you're willing to share the 30 decisions, or at least ones that aren't too personal?
Sleep apnea is when your airway is blocked so you’re not breathing during your sleep, which results in lower oxygen in your blood and repeatedly waking up to restart breathing. This fragments your sleep and leaves you feeling tired.
For a home test, I think the patient has to set up the equipment themselves, which I expect is more likely to result in bad data. Since doctors treat sleep apnea as a chronic condition, I would be surprised if sleeping in another bed caused it.
That sounds like what I heard – one doctor told me that home sleep tests were useless but insurance companies try to push people to use them instead of in-lab sleep tests because home tests are way less expensive. From reading elsewhere, it sounds like a home test might work if one has severe sleep apnea.
The purpose of Stimulus Control Therapy is to avoid implicitly associating the bed with being awake. Just guessing, it seems reasonable that greylag is correct about sexual activity being a concession to practicality. I suspect that most people would resist any advice to switch their sex life to the living room.
They don’t have RTCs of just sleep timing in everyday settings; that’s not the same as not having evidence. Sleep specialists have a theory of why sleep timing is important, RTCs of sleep hygiene that show a moderate effect on insomnia, and personal experience working with patients. It’s unfortunate that we don’t have research in finer grained detail, but there is evidence supporting the doctor’s recommendations.
Does that mean it will work for you? Not necessarily. Based on the overall performance of sleep hygiene, I would expect at most a modest improvement in sleep quality. It’s your call whether poor sleep negatively impacts your life enough that a modest improvement in expectation is worth leaving parties early for a month. It’s totally fair if the information value isn’t worth that cost to you.
Good question - I don't think we know as much about that as would be ideal.
In laboratory studies and among shift workers (people working during the night and sleeping during the day), there's a bunch of studies that find negative effects if your sleeping/waking schedule is misaligned with your circadian rhythm (see the sleep timing section here https://www.sleephealthjournal.org/article/S2352-7218(14)00013-8/pdf). However, I don't know of studies testing just sleep timing in real-world normal populations.
More broadly, sleep hygiene is helpful for insomnia, but much less so than CBT-I (e.g. this meta-analysis https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29194467). However, according to the doctors I spoke with, sleep hygiene is often used as a first-line treatment because people can easily test it at home, and they should get results within a month of consistent use if sleep hygiene will help. It sounds like most people who have insomnia have already taken care of basic sleep hygiene, though both of the sleep specialists I interviewed (Dr. Bertisch and Dr. Barger) emphasized consistent sleep schedules as one of the most important sleep hygiene tips people commonly miss.
However, that doesn't address the specific details of what counts as consistent times. For people with insomnia, Stimulus Control Therapy indicates you shouldn't go to bed until you feel sleepy but should wake up at the same time. So if that's you, I expect setting a consistent alarm time regardless of when you went to bed might be good.
I interpreted it as overall average productivity drop, which makes sense since I wouldn't expect most people to report productivity losses at the lower end of this scale (75°F). Rereading it, my interpretation still seems more likely, but it's not totally clear which one the authors meant.
Good points - these heuristics are much better than nothing, but probably shouldn't be taken at face value without some additional thought.