Beliefs of women of childbearing age on healthy sleep habits: a reasoned action approach elicitation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is little information on the determinants of healthy sleep habits (HSH) among women of childbearing age (WOCBA). The objective was to identify WOCBA's beliefs on HSH based on the Reasoned Action Approach. Thirty WOCBA (18-41 years) were randomly assigned to answer questions regarding one of three HSH: avoiding screen use in bed; avoiding caffeine, alcohol and cigarettes before bedtime; and having a regular bedtime and wake up time even on weekends. A content analysis was performed independently by two experts to identify the most important beliefs using a 75% cumulative frequency of mention. Participants reported that adopting the HSH would improve sleep, avoid side effects, help them relax before bedtime and make them feel like they were missing out on things. Adopting the HSH was associated with feeling relaxed and satisfied, but also qualified as unpleasant and abnormal. WOCBA mentioned their parents, partner, siblings and children would approve/disapprove if they adopted the HSH and were the most/least likely to adopt them. Barriers were having activities in the evening and social situations. Facilitating factors were putting their electronic devices away from bed, having alternatives and a regular schedule. These results can guide the development of interventions promoting HSH among WOCBA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".