Objective and subjective socioeconomic gradients exist for sleep in children and adolescents.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Socioeconomic position (SEP) is inversely associated with many health outcomes, yielding a socioeconomic gradient in health. In adults, low SEP is associated with short sleep duration, poorer sleep quality, and difficulty initiating and maintaining sleep. Relatively little is known about this relation in youth. The aim of the present study was to examine whether socioeconomic gradients exist for various sleep indices among a healthy sample of children and adolescents. METHOD: Participants took part in the larger Healthy Heart Project and included 239 youth (69.6% Caucasian; 45.6% female), aged 8-17 years (M = 12.6, SD = 1.9). Parental income and education were used to measure objective SEP. The Subjective Social Status Scale-Youth Version was used to measure subjective SEP. Sleep duration, sleep quality, daytime sleepiness, and sleep disturbances were assessed through self- and parent-report. RESULTS: In children, objective SEP was related with sleep duration (β = .35, p < .01), although subjective SEP was related with daytime sleepiness (βavg = .33, p < .01) and parent-reported sleep duration (β = .23, p < .05). In adolescents, subjective SEP was related with sleep quality (β = .28, p < .01) and parent-reported sleep duration (β = -.18, p < .05), even after controlling for objective SEP. CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic gradients were observed for multiple sleep measures in youth. Objective parental SEP was related with sleep complaints (e.g., sleep disturbances), and subjective SEP was related with sleep quality and daytime sleepiness. Findings suggest sleep may be one pathway underlying the socioeconomic gradient in health. Future research should aim to elucidate how distinct sleep constructs may explain how socioeconomic status "gets under the skin" to affect health.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".