Technology-Assisted Behavioral Intervention to Extend Sleep Duration: Development and Design of the Sleep Bunny Mobile App
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the high prevalence of short sleep duration (29.2% of adults sleep <6 hours on weekdays), there are no existing theory-based behavioral interventions to extend sleep duration. The popularity of wearable sleep trackers provides an opportunity to engage users in interventions. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to outline the theoretical foundation and iterative process of designing the "Sleep Bunny," a technology-assisted sleep extension intervention including a mobile phone app, wearable sleep tracker, and brief telephone coaching. We conducted a two-step process in the development of this intervention, which was as follows: (1) user testing of the app and (2) a field trial that was completed by 2 participants with short sleep duration and a cardiovascular disease risk factor linked to short sleep duration (body mass index [BMI] >25). METHODS: All participants had habitual sleep duration <6.5 hours verified by 7 days of actigraphy. A total of 6 individuals completed initial user testing in the development phase, and 2 participants completed field testing. Participants in the user testing and field testing responded to open-ended surveys about the design and utility of the app. Participants in the field testing completed the Epworth Sleepiness Scale and also wore an actigraph for a 1-week baseline period and during the 4-week intervention period. RESULTS: The feedback suggests that users enjoyed the wearable sleep tracker and found the app visually pleasing, but they suggested improvements to the notification and reminder features of the app. The 2 participants who completed the field test demonstrated significant improvements in sleep duration and daytime sleepiness. CONCLUSIONS: Further testing is needed to determine effects of this intervention in populations at risk for the mental and physical consequences of sleep loss.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".