Sleep Patterns of Premedical Undergraduate Students: Pilot Study and Protocol Evaluation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Poor sleep hygiene persists in college students today, despite its heavy implications on adolescent development and academic performance. Although sleep patterns in undergraduates have been broadly investigated, no study has exclusively assessed the sleep patterns of premedical undergraduate students. A gap also exists in the knowledge of how students perceive their sleep patterns compared to their actual sleep patterns. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to address 2 research questions: What are the sleep patterns of premedical undergraduate students? Would the proposed study protocol be feasible to examine the perception of sleep quality and promote sleep behavioral changes in premedical undergraduate students? METHODS: An anonymous survey was conducted with premedical students in the Medical Science Baccalaureate program at an R1: doctoral university in the Midwest United States to investigate their sleep habits and understand their demographics. The survey consisted of both Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) questionnaire items (1-9) and participant demographic questions. To examine the proposed protocol feasibility, we recruited 5 students from the survey pool for addressing the perception of sleep quality and changes. These participants followed a 2-week protocol wearing Fitbit Inspire 2 watches and underwent preassessments, midassessments, and postassessments. Participants completed daily reflections and semistructured interviews along with PSQI questionnaires during assessments. RESULTS: According to 103 survey responses, premedical students slept an average of 7.1 hours per night. Only a quarter (26/103) of the participants experienced good sleep quality (PSQI<5), although there was no significant difference (P=.11) in the proportions of good (PSQI<5) versus poor sleepers (PSQI≥5) across cohorts. When students perceived no problem at all in their sleep quality, 50% (14/28) of them actually had poor sleep quality. Among the larger proportion of students who perceived sleep quality as only a slight problem, 26% (11/43) of them presented poor sleep quality. High stress levels were associated with poor sleep quality. This study reveals Fitbit as a beneficial tool in raising sleep awareness. Participants highlighted Fitbit elements that aid in comprehension such as being able to visualize their sleep stage breakdown and receive an overview of their sleep pattern by simply looking at their Fitbit sleep scores. In terms of protocol evaluation, participants believed that assessments were conducted within the expected duration, and they did not have a strong opinion about the frequency of survey administration. However, Fitbit was found to provide notable variation daily, leading to missing data. Moreover, the Fitbit app's feature description was vague and could lead to confusion. CONCLUSIONS: Poor sleep quality experienced by unaware premedical students points to a need for raising sleep awareness and developing effective interventions. Future work should refine our study protocol based on lessons learned and health behavior theories and use Fitbit as an informatics solution to promote healthy sleep behaviors.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,174 | 0,119 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».