Prevalence and Correlates of Insomnia Symptoms in Older Chinese Adults During the COVID-19 Outbreak: A Classification Tree Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To examine prevalence and correlates of insomnia symptoms in older Chinese adults (OCAs) during the COVID-19 outbreak. Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, insomnia is a major health concern of elderly individuals, but its subtypes have not been investigated. Methods Altogether, 590 OCAs (50+ years) were recruited via snowball sampling during the COVID-19 outbreak. Standardized self-report questions were used to assess the presence of difficulty initiating sleep (DIS), difficulty maintaining sleep (DMS), and early morning awakening (EMA). Classification tree analysis (CTA) was used to identify correlates of insomnia. Results The one-month prevalence (95% confidence interval) of any subtype of insomnia symptoms was 23.4% (20.0–26.8%), with DIS, DMS, and EMA being 15.4% (12.5–18.3%), 17.1% (14.1–20.2%), and 11.2% (8.64–13.7%), respectively. Worry about being infected with COVID-19 emerged as the most salient correlate of insomnia ( P < .001); compared to participants who were not worried about being infected, those who were worried and very worried were 3.2-fold (24.3% vs 7.5%) and 5.5-fold (24.3% vs 7.5%) more likely to have insomnia, respectively. Among participants in the “very worried” branch, those residing in Wuhan were 1.8-fold more likely to have insomnia than those residing in other places (50.0% vs 27.5%, P = .011). Among participants in the “worried” branch, unemployed persons were 2.0-fold more likely to have insomnia than employed persons (37.0% vs 18.1%, P < .001). Conclusions Insomnia symptoms were prevalent among OCAs during the COVID-19 outbreak. Selective intervention programs targeting elderly individuals who are worried about being infected, living in the epicenter of COVID-19, and unemployed might be effective.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".