The Relationship between Sleep Quality and Eating Competence in A Sample of Canadian Post-Secondary Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<italic></bold>Background:</italic></bold> Post-secondary students are at increased risk for sleep problems and poor eating behaviours that overtime may lead to negative health outcomes later in life. However, limited research has examined associations of sleep quality with eating behaviours and eating competence (e.g., being positive, flexible, and comfortable with eating and getting enough enjoyable and nutritious foods) among Canadian post-secondary students. <italic></bold>Methods: </italic></bold>Using a cross-sectional study design, participants completed an online survey with valid and reliable measures that assessed sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index [PSQI]), eating competence (Satter Eating Competence Inventory [ecSI]) and select eating behaviours (i.e., daily fruit and vegetable intake; weekly caffeine and alcohol intake). Participants were dichotomized into poor- and good-quality sleepers using the PSQI cut-off score (&#x003E;5 = poor-quality sleeper). Independent t-tests examined sociodemographic (e.g., year in college) and health (e.g., Body Mass Index [BMI]) differences by sleep quality group. Binary logistic regression analyses controlling for BMI examined significant differences between quality sleep (good vs. poor) with eating behaviours. Significance level was set at p&#x003C;0.05. <italic></bold>Results: </italic></bold>Participants (n=184) were mostly female (86%) and pursuing full-time studies (93%) in the Faculty of Health Sciences. Most participants were categorized as poor-quality sleepers (69%, n=127), were not meeting the minimum of 7 hours of recommended hours of sleep per night (6.75&#x00B1;1.44SD) and had daily intakes of fruits and vegetables that fell below the recommended minimum. Good quality sleepers had higher eating attitudes (OR=1.23; 95% CI=1.10, 1.39; p&#x003C;0.001), internal regulation (OR=1.24, 95% CI=1.05, 1.48; p=0.015), contextual skills (OR=1.13; 95% CI=1.03, 1.25; p=0.010), and overall eating competence (OR=1.07, 95% CI=1.03, 1.12; p=0.002) compared to poor-quality sleepers. <italic></bold>Conclusion:</italic></bold> Campus health services should consider screening students for inadequate sleep behaviours, and when warranted, provide nutrition education that focus on skills to improve eating competence.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".