Help-seeking behavior of young and middle-aged Austrians with chronic insomnia: Results from the 2017 national sleep survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic insomnia is highly prevalent and associates with poor physical and mental health, leading to high societal cost. Data on insomnia from Austria, including help-seeking behaviour, are currently lacking. In 2017 we conducted an online survey in Austrian adults aged between 18 and 67 years. Chronic insomnia was defined based on the 3rd edition of the diagnostic criteria of the International Classification of Sleep Disorders (ICSD-III) using an exact and a broad definition. Daytime functioning had to be affected “much” to “very much” for the exact (chronic insomnia) and “somewhat” for the broad (chronic insomnia symptoms) definition, respectively. We evaluated the distribution of sociodemographic characteristics, sleep problems overall and stratified by help-seeking behaviour. A total of 1004 participants (50.4% female, age 42 ± 13 years) completed the survey. In 8.9 % sleep problems were classified as chronic insomnia symptoms (broad definition) and in 7.8% as chronic insomnia (exact definition). Among participants with chronic insomnia symptoms and chronic insomnia, 26% and 53% respectively, reported active help-seeking behavior for their sleep problems. In conclusion, the prevalence of chronic insomnia appears comparable to that of other European countries with a higher proportion of people with chronic insomnia symptoms not fulfilling current diagnostic criteria. The low rates of active help-seeking behavior in both groups warrant more attention to public health initiatives regarding patient education and early treatment of insomnia.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".