P039 Interventions used to increase sleep duration in young people: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Habitual short sleep duration affects a substantial proportion of young people, which is problematic due to its association with various adverse consequences. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the effectiveness of current interventions to increase sleep duration in healthy young people (14–25 years). Methods A systematic literature search, following PRISMA guidelines was conducted across multiple databases including PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, CINAHL (via EBSCOhost), PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and Trove. Eligible studies were required to report sleep duration before and after exposure to the intervention, published from 2005 onwards, and participants 14–25 years of age. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias were used to evaluate quality of studies. Results 2695 citation were screened, and 29 studies met the eligibility criteria for this review. The included studies implemented differing methodologies, including behavioural (48.3%), educational (24.1%), and combination (24.1%) of behavioural, educational and other methods, such as mindfulness, light therapy, and naturalistic observation (3.4%). Initial findings indicate that educational interventions on their own are not effective at increasing sleep duration as behavioural or combination of both. Discussion These results indicate that behavioural interventions which prescribe new sleep schedules show positive treatment effects on sleep duration. Hence, provide promise for mitigating sleep difficulties and improving health in young people aged 14–25 years.
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 | 0.011 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".