Cross-Cultural Comparison of Maternal Sleep
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To characterize cross-cultural sleep patterns and sleep problems in a large sample of mothers of children (ages birth to 6 years) in multiple predominantly Asian and predominantly Caucasian countries. METHODS: Mothers of 10,085 young children (predominantly Asian countries/regions: China, Hong Kong, India, Korea, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand; predominantly Caucasian countries: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States) completed an internet-based expanded version of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. RESULTS: Mothers in predominantly Asian countries/regions had later bedtimes, decreased number and duration of night wakings, more nighttime sleep, and more total sleep than mothers from predominantly Caucasian countries, P < 0.001. More than half (54.7%) of mothers reported having poor sleep, ranging from 50.9% of mothers in Malaysia to 77.8% of mothers in Japan. Sleep disturbance symptoms were quite common, especially symptoms related to insomnia, and were more likely to be reported by mothers in predominantly Caucasian countries. However, psychosocial factors, including having children of a younger age, being unemployed, and having a lower education level were the best predictors of poor sleep, whereas culture was not a significant predictor. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, mothers in predominantly Asian countries/regions reported later bedtimes but sleeping better and longer than mothers from predominantly Caucasian countries, which is dissimilar to cross-cultural findings of young children. Psychosocial factors were found to be the best predictors of poor sleep, irrespective of culture. Further studies are needed to understand the impact of these findings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".