MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612803358 · doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0490-y

Behavioral interventions to promote adequate sleep among women: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

2017· review· en· W2612803358 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lydi‐Anne Vézina‐Im, Jennette P. Moreno, Theresa A. Nicklas, Tom Baranowski

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAgricultural Research ServiceInstitute of Population and Public HealthU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsMedicinePsycINFOPsychological interventionCINAHLMEDLINEMeta-analysisSleep hygieneRandomized controlled trialOverweightSleep (system call)Physical therapyPsychiatryObesityInsomnia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Short and poor sleep have been associated with adverse health outcomes in adults, such as overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes, especially among women. Women therefore represent an important target for interventions aimed at improving sleep and such interventions have been advocated to enhance maternal, fetal, and infant health. This systematic review will assess the efficacy or effectiveness of behavioral interventions aimed at promoting adequate sleep among women. The primary outcomes will be changes in sleep duration and/or sleep quality from baseline to post-intervention and to the last available follow-up measured either through self-reports or objectively. Secondary outcomes will be assessing the behavior change techniques that are responsible for the changes in sleep duration and quality among women. Behavioral interventions that are non-pharmacological and target either sleep directly or sleep hygiene behaviors will be included. Randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental, and one-group pre-post studies will be included, but treated separately in the analyses, given that a limited number of studies on the topic of sleep is expected. MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Proquest Dissertations and Theses will be investigated. There will be no restriction on the year of publication of the articles, but we will include only the ones written in English or French. Two authors will independently assess articles for eligibility and will extract data using a standardized data extraction form that will have been previously pilot-tested. The quality of the studies will be assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool for quantitative study designs. The intervention procedures will be classified according to the latest validated taxonomy of behavior change techniques. If there is a sufficient number of studies (k > 5), a meta-analysis of the results will be performed with a random-effect model. If the heterogeneity is high (I 2 ≥ 75%), it will be investigated through sensitivity analyses and meta-regression. This review will provide valuable information to those interested in promoting adequate sleep among women and, hopefully, encourage additional research in this important field to promote maternal, fetal, and infant health. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO in October 2016 (CRD42016049538).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.066
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.084
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0660.084
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0260.028
Bibliometrics0.0100.012
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0960.008

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.

Opus teacher head0.364
GPT teacher head0.528
Teacher spread0.164 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207