Poor Sleep Could Cut Up to Nine Months From Workers' Careers After 50, Finnish Study Finds
Researchers at the University of Turku in Finland have found that severely disrupted sleep or consistently long sleep duration could cost workers up to nine months of working life after age 50, with the sharpest effects concentrated among those in lower socioeconomic groups. The findings, drawn from two large Finnish datasets, add a quantified career-expectancy dimension to a body of research that has mostly linked poor sleep to health outcomes rather than labour-market participation.
Led by Dr Saana Myllyntausta of the department of psychology and speech-language pathology at the University of Turku, the study pooled data from the Finnish Public Sector (FPS) study and the Health and Social Support (HeSSup) study, surveying participants' sleeping habits after they turned 50. Sleep length was categorised as short (under seven hours), mid-range (seven to 8.5 hours), or long (nine hours or more). Sleep disturbances were defined as difficulty falling asleep, difficulty staying asleep, waking up too early, and nonrestorative sleep during the four weeks preceding the survey. The Guardian
The study found that short and mid-range nightly sleep length were both associated with a working life expectancy of 13 years and two months after age 50, while long nightly sleep length was associated with 12 years and five months — a gap of nine months. Myllyntausta noted that long sleep duration has been linked to poorer health outcomes in prior research, which might explain the shorter working career.
On the disturbances axis, the gradient was steeper. Compared with participants reporting no sleep disturbances, those with moderate disturbances could expect to work nearly five fewer months after age 50, and those with severe disturbances eight fewer months. These effects held regardless of gender or job type.
The study also mapped outcomes along occupational class and gender. Women with no sleep disturbances had a longer working life from age 50 to 68 than their male equivalents. The longest working life expectancy after 50, almost 14 years, was observed among professional women with no sleep disturbances. The shortest, nearly 12 and a half years, was among men in routine jobs with severe sleep disturbances. That roughly 18-month spread between the best and worst groups places sleep quality alongside occupational class as a correlate of late-career longevity.
One finding surprised the research team. Myllyntausta noted that no difference in working life expectancy emerged between those with short sleep duration and those with mid-range sleep duration (7–9 hours per night, considered the optimal amount), despite previous studies having linked short sleep duration to earlier retirement. The absence of that expected gap here may reflect the specific characteristics of the Finnish workforce or the study's focus on working life expectancy rather than retirement timing alone.
The researchers acknowledged notable limitations. They could not account for other potentially influential factors including physical and mental health, underlying health conditions, risky health behaviours, and working conditions such as shift work. These confounders are particularly relevant because long sleep duration and severe sleep disturbances may themselves be markers of poorer underlying health, making it difficult to isolate sleep as an independent causal driver of shortened working life.
The broader context here is one of aging workforces and tightening pension eligibility across Europe. If disrupted sleep is shaving months off working life expectancy, particularly among routine occupational groups who may have the least access to sleep interventions, the policy implications extend beyond individual health into questions of pension sustainability, workforce planning, and occupational health provision. Previous studies cited in the research suggest that one in three workers across the UK are experiencing a chronic lack of sleep, a prevalence rate that, if mirrored elsewhere, would make sleep disturbance a population-level labour-market variable rather than an individual clinical concern.
Myllyntausta said the findings point to the importance of supporting sleep health and treating sleep problems, particularly among those with low socioeconomic status, during middle age. The study's recommended interventions included cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) — a structured talk therapy that targets the thoughts and behaviours perpetuating sleep problems — delivered by occupational health services, along with workplace-based educational and health-promotion interventions. Myllyntausta noted that such interventions have been found effective in previous studies of working-age adults.
The study concluded that promoting sleep health and providing support for managing sleep disturbances at midlife may be especially important for those with a lower socioeconomic status when aiming to increase workforce participation with advancing age. Whether occupational health systems across different national contexts have the capacity to deliver CBT-I and structured sleep interventions at the scale these findings imply is an open question, one that sits at the intersection of clinical provision, employer responsibility, and pension policy.
