Sleeping at the Limits: The Changing Prevalence of Short and Long Sleep Durations in 10 Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Short (≤6 hours) and long (>9 hours) sleep durations are risk factors for mortality and morbidity. To investigate whether the prevalences of short and long sleep durations have increased from the 1970s to the 2000s, we analyzed data from repeated cross-sectional surveys of 10 industrialized countries (38 nationally representative time-use surveys; n = 328,018 adults). Logistic regression models for each country were used to determine changes in the prevalence of short and long sleep durations over time, controlling for sampling differences in gender, age, number of weekend days included, and season of data collection. Over the periods covered by data, the prevalence of short sleep duration increased in Italy (adjusted odds ratio = 2.64, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.41, 2.89) and Norway (adjusted odds ratio = 2.33, 95% CI: 1.77, 3.08) but decreased in Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The prevalence of long sleep duration increased in Australia (adjusted odds ratio = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.05, 1.25), Finland (adjusted odds ratio = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.48), Sweden (adjusted odds ratio = 1.51, 95% CI: 1.35, 1.69), the United Kingdom (adjusted odds ratio = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.68, 2.46), and the United States (adjusted odds ratio = 1.50, 95% CI: 1.36, 1.65) but decreased in Canada and Italy. No changes were observed in Germany or the Netherlands. Limited increases in short sleep duration challenge the claim of increasingly sleep-deprived societies. Long sleep duration is more widespread than is short sleep duration. It has become more prevalent and thus should not be overlooked as a potential contributor to ill 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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".