MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2614057802 · doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4334-4

Do parents’ support behaviours predict whether or not their children get sufficient sleep? A cross-sectional study

2017· article· en· W2614057802 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Evelyn Pyper, Daniel W. Harrington, Heather Manson

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of WaterlooPublic Health Ontario
FundersPublic Health Ontario
KeywordsMedicineBedtimeOverweightLogistic regressionBiostatisticsSleep (system call)Screen timeObesityPublic healthCross-sectional studyClinical psychologyGerontologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sleep is an essential component of healthy cognitive and physical development. Lack of sleep may put children at risk for a variety of mental and physical health outcomes, including overweight, obesity and related chronic diseases. Given that children's sleep duration has decreased in recent decades, there is a need to understand the determinants of child sleep, including the role of parental support behaviours. This study aims to determine the relative contribution of different types of parental support behaviours for predicting the likelihood that children meet recently established Canadian sleep guidelines. METHODS: Data were collected using Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews (CATI) of parents or guardians with at least one child under the age of 18 living in Ontario, Canada. To align with sleep guidelines, parents included in this analysis had at least one child between 5 and 17 years of age (n = 1622). Two multivariable logistic regression models were built to predict whether or not parents reported their child was meeting sleep guidelines - one for weekday sleep and another for sleep on weekends. Independent variables included parent and child age and gender, motivational and regulatory parental support behaviours, and socio-demographic characteristics. RESULTS: On weekdays, enforcing rules about child bedtime was a significant positive predictor of children meeting sleep guidelines (OR: 1.59; 95% CI: 1.03-2.44); while encouraging the child to go to bed at a specific time was a significant negative predictor of child meeting sleep guidelines (OR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.13-0.65). On weekends, none of the parental support behaviours contributed significantly to the predictions of child sleep. For both weekdays and weekends, the child's age group was an important predictor of children meeting sleep guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The contribution of parental support behaviours to predictions of children meeting sleep guidelines varied with the type of support provided, and weekend versus weekday sleep. While only enforcing bedtime rules on weekdays contributed to children meeting sleep guidelines, the importance of children getting a good night's sleep, and the capacity of parents to help them do so, should be emphasized in public health efforts promoting healthy child development.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations72
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207