Evaluating the effectiveness of the Motivating Teens To Sleep More program in advancing bedtime in adolescents: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sleep restriction is a prevalent issue for adolescents and has been associated with negative cognitive, emotional, and physical health (e.g., poor attention, depressed mood, obesity). Existing sleep promotion programs are successful in improving adolescents’ sleep knowledge but not sleep behaviour. The aim of this randomized controlled trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of Motivating Teens to Sleep More program – a sleep promotion program with embedded sleep education that combines three approaches: motivational interviewing style, tailoring activities, and stage-based intervention – as compared to a sleep education only control in motivating adolescents to go to bed earlier leading to prolonged sleep duration. The Motivating Teens to Sleep More study will be conducted with adolescents at a Montreal high school. Half of the participants will be randomly assigned to the Motivating Teens to Sleep More program condition and the other half to the sleep education control condition. Each condition will consist of four 1-hour sessions spanning four consecutive weeks. Bedtime will be assessed by sleep logs completed for a week prior to the start of the program, in the middle of the program and following the program. Sleep onset and total sleep time will be assessed by actigraphy for one week prior to the start and following the program. The Motivating Teens to Sleep More program is a novel intervention that contributes theoretically to the field of pediatric sleep by merging three approaches to motivate normally developing adolescents to adopt earlier bedtimes. Should the program be successful in advancing bedtimes and increasing total sleep time, the study would offer insights in how to design effective motivational sleep promotion programs for adolescents, which can potentially improve adolescent health and well-being. ISRCTN19425350 .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".