Juma Rahman1,2*
Bapon Fakhruddin1,2,3- 1University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
- 2Research & Evaluation Office (REO), Auckland, New Zealand
- 3CODATA, International Science Council, Paris, France
by Kader, S. B., Shakurun, N., Mumin, J., and Noor, N. (2025). Front. Public Health 13:1632239. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1632239
1 Introduction
Sleep duration and sleep quality are well-established determinants of overall health. Extensive evidence showing that inadequate or poor-quality sleep increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, metabolic disorders, mental-health problems, and all-cause mortality (1–3). Additionally, recent umbrella reviews and population-based studies confirm that both short sleep and poor sleep quality independently and jointly contribute to adverse physical and psychological outcomes, including depression, anxiety, chronic pain, and reduced subjective wellbeing (4–6).
In light of this, we express concern about the methodological integrity of the recently published study by Kader et al. (7), “Joint effect of sleep duration and sleep quality on self-rated health among Canadian adults: estimating relative excess risk due to interaction from a nationwide survey.” It analyzed data from the Canadian Community Health Survey to assess joint effects of short sleep (< 7 h) and poor sleep quality on self-rated health, reporting an odds ratio (ORs) ~2.5 for poor health when both risk factors were present. The study has several methodological limitations that raise questions about the validity and interpretability of its conclusions.
In this commentary, we discuss three primary methodological concerns: limited generalizability, potential bias introduced by dichotomizing key variables, and interpretation challenges in using ORs and additive interaction measures in a cross-sectional study. Our aim is to clarify these concerns and provide constructive direction for strengthening future research in this important area of sleep and population health.
1.1 Representativeness and limited regional restriction
A major concern is the study's restriction to six provinces and territories, excluding Ontario and Manitoba, which together account for roughly 38% of Canada's population (8). Omitting these large and socio-demographically diverse provinces introduces substantial risk of selection bias and limits national generalizability, particularly if sleep patterns or health outcomes differ meaningfully across regions. The rationale for this exclusion was not provided, and although briefly noted in the discussion but no actions were taken, like sensitivity analyses or even discussing the justification for omitting these states. This is a major limitation of the study's generalizability.
1.2 Oversimplification of key variables of health and sleep measures
The study simplifies key variables in ways that obscure important nuances. The dichotomization of self-rated health into “Good or Better” vs. “Fair or Poor” reduces a five-point ordinal measure to a binary outcome, discarding meaningful variation in perceived health. The reason and methods of this dichotomization are not clear in the methodology section. Similarly, the categorization of sleep duration into “ < 7 h” and “≥7 h” fails to account for the non-linear relationship between sleep and health outcomes, particularly the adverse effects of long sleep duration. The binary coding of trouble sleeping further conflates transient and chronic sleep disturbances, potentially misclassifying exposure. Preserving the original scales or applying more refined categorizations would allow a more accurate characterization of the complex relationships between sleep and health outcomes. For sleep duration, we recommend treating it as a continuous variable with a non-linear term (such as a restricted cubic spline) (9), or at least distinguishing short, normal, and long sleep. This approach captures the known U-shaped association between sleep length and health outcomes (10), where both short and long sleep are linked to worse health.
1.3 Questionable use of RERI estimation and cross-sectional data
The authors estimated additive interaction using Relative Excess Risk due to Interaction (RERI) derived from odds ratios in a cross-sectional dataset. While RERI quantifies whether the joint effect of two exposures exceeds the sum of their individual effects (11), applying it to ORs is statistically and conceptually challenging. When outcomes are common in cross-sectional analyses, ORs overestimate associations (12) relative to risk ratios, diverging non-linearly from true probabilities and compromising interpretability (13). This limitation can be addressed using log-binomial or modified Poisson regression models with robust error variance, which provide valid estimates of risk ratios for additive interaction.
1.4 Ethical oversight in data governance considerations
Thus, the original study complied with established ethics norms for secondary data analysis (14). However, ethical responsibility extends beyond formal review requirements. Analyses involving sensitive health and behavioral variables should still acknowledge data governance principles, including privacy safeguards and the potential for re-identification. While anonymization substantially reduces risk, a brief statement on these considerations would strengthen transparency and reinforce research integrity.
1.5 Risk of misleading causal interpretations
The cross-sectional design of the CCHS inherently precludes causal inference; however, aspects of the paper's framing suggest directional or causal interpretations. Given that exposure and outcome were assessed concurrently, it is not possible to determine whether poor sleep precedes adverse health outcomes, whether the reverse is true (15), or whether both are influenced by unmeasured confounders. Presenting additive interaction effects without temporal or causal context risks misinforming policymakers and the public, potentially contributing to misdirected interventions, suboptimal resource allocation, and diminished confidence in sleep health research.
2 Conclusion
This study by Kader et al. draws attention to a significant public health issue but is undermined by methodological shortcomings. It demonstrates how methodological compromises and insufficiently justified analytic choices can produce imprecise or potentially misleading findings. Careful methodology using representative data, avoiding arbitrary dichotomization, and selecting appropriate risk measures is essential. Future research should employ designs that support causal inference and adopt modern analytical approaches, such as ordinal models or spline-based methods, to better capture complex dose–response relationships.
Author contributions
JR: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. BF: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Cappuccio FP, D'Elia L, Strazzullo P, Miller MA. Sleep duration and all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Sleep. (2010) 33:585–92. doi: 10.1093/sleep/33.5.585
2. Itani O, Jike M, Watanabe N, Kaneita Y. Short sleep duration and health outcomes: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. Sleep Med. (2017) 32:246–56. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2016.08.006
3. Jike M, Itani O, Watanabe N, Buysse DJ, Kaneita Y. Long sleep duration and health outcomes: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression. Sleep Med Rev. (2018) 39:25–36. doi: 10.1016/j.smrv.2017.06.011
4. Li J, Cao D, Huang Y, Chen Z, Wang R, Dong Q, et al. Sleep duration and health outcomes: an umbrella review. Sleep Breath. (2022) 26:1479–501. doi: 10.1007/s11325-021-02458-1
5. Chaput J-P, Dutil C, Featherstone R, Ross R, Giangregorio L, Saunders TJ, et al. Sleep timing, sleep consistency, and health in adults: a systematic review. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. (2020) 45:S232–S47. doi: 10.1139/apnm-2020-0032
6. Bacaro V, Miletic K, Crocetti E, A. meta-analysis of longitudinal studies on the interplay between sleep, mental health, and positive well-being in adolescents. Int J Clin Health Psychol. (2024) 24:100424. doi: 10.1016/j.ijchp.2023.100424
7. Kader SB, Shakurun N, Mumin J, Noor N. Joint Effect of Sleep Duration and sleep quality on self-rated health among Canadian adults: estimating relative excess risk due to interaction from a nationwide survey. Front Public Health. (2025) 13:1632239. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1632239
8. COSEWIC. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) in Canada Canada Government of Canada (2023). Available online at: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/species-risk-public-registry/cosewic-assessments-status-reports/bobolink-2022.html (Accessed November 13, 2025).
9. Lopez-Ayala P, Riley RD, Collins GS, Zimmermann T. Dealing with continuous variables and modelling non-linear associations in healthcare data: practical guide. BMJ. (2025) 390:e082440. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2024-082440
10. Henríquez-Beltrán M, Dreyse J, Jorquera J, Jorquera-Diaz J, Salas C, Fernandez-Bussy I, et al. The U-shaped association between sleep duration, all-cause mortality and cardiovascular risk in a Hispanic/Latino clinically based cohort. J Clin Med. (2023) 12:4961. doi: 10.3390/jcm12154961
11. Nie L, Chu H, Li F, Cole SR. Relative excess risk due to interaction: resampling-based confidence intervals. Epidemiology. (2010) 21:552–6. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181e09b0b
12. Barros AJ, Hirakata VN. Alternatives for logistic regression in cross-sectional studies: an empirical comparison of models that directly estimate the prevalence ratio. BMC Med Res Methodol. (2003) 3:21. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-3-21
13. Gnardellis C, Notara V, Papadakaki M, Gialamas V, Chliaoutakis J. Overestimation of relative risk and prevalence ratio: misuse of logistic modeling. Diagnostics. (2022) 12:2851. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12112851
14. TCPS-2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Ottawa, ON: Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. TCPS-2 (2014).
Keywords: additive interaction assessment, interaction, relative excess risk due to interaction, sleep duration, sleep quality, statistical approaches
Citation: Rahman J and Fakhruddin B (2026) Commentary: Joint effect of sleep duration and sleep quality on self-rated health among Canadian adults: estimating relative excess risk due to interaction from a nationwide survey. Front. Public Health 13:1725525. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1725525
Received: 16 October 2025; Revised: 08 December 2025;
Accepted: 22 December 2025; Published: 15 January 2026.
Edited by:
Christos Theleritis, University General Hospital Attikon, GreeceReviewed by:
Kannadhasan Suriyan, Study World College of Engineering, IndiaChandni Chopra, University of Mumbai, India
Sakchai Srisuk, Nakhon Phanom University, Thailand
Rasool Hamidi Choolabi, University of Guilan, Iran
Jayesh Beladiya, L M College of Pharmacy, India
Copyright © 2026 Rahman and Fakhruddin. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Juma Rahman, anJhaDcxNkBhdWNrbGFuZHVuaS5hYy5ueg==