MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281701900 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsac079.661

0665 Mindfulness as a Protective Factor for Chronic Insomnia in College Students

2022· article· en· W4281701900 on OpenAlexaff
Chandni Shah, Sheila N. Garland, Michael L. Perlis, Alexandria Muench

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMindfulnessChronotypePsychologyClinical psychologyInsomniaPsychiatryMedicineCircadian rhythm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction College students are at high risk for developing insomnia and co-morbid psychological distress. The aim of this research was to assess whether the lack of endogenous mindfulness was a risk factor for insomnia. Methods In order to address this issue, an archival analysis was conducted with a data set from MUN where the relationship between chronotype, mental health, sleep quality, and social support was assessed (n=3,160; 2,266 women; X̅age=22 years). The proband subsample of interest were subjects that completed the HADS, MEQ, the ISI, and the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS). The MAAS is a 15 item self-report measure, where each item is scored on a six-point Likert scale. Scores range from 15-90, higher scores are indicative of greater mindfulness. In order to evaluate the relevance of mindfulness, the overall sample was split into two groups (endogenous mindfulness [average score of ≥4.2]): n=647; X̅age=22.4 years; nonendogenous mindfulness [average score of ≥4.2]: n=1,505; X̅age=22.04 years). Results Subjects (n=2,152) were between the ages of 18-35 (X̅=22+/- 3.72) and included primarily Caucasian individuals (86.6 %) and individuals who identified as female (71.7%). The means and ranges for the ISI, MAAS, and HADS were as follows: 9.0 + 5.6 (0-28), 3.7+.98 (1-6), and 5.3 + 3.9 (0-21), respectively. A correlation of -0.27 (p<0.001) was found for endogenous mindfulness (scale score range 1-6) and insomnia (scale score range 0-28) and -0.25 (p<0.001) for non-endogenous mindfulness (scale score range 1-6) and insomnia. Moderator analyses were conducted, and it was found that depression moderates the relationship between mindfulness and insomnia, (HADS depression, ΔR2 = .2, ΔF(3, 643)=57.6, p=.012, b=-.3, t(643)=-2.5 p< .05. Results should be interpreted with caution as the effect size was less than 0.1. Conclusion There was a relationship found, in both groups, between mindfulness and the ISI, where the scores on the ISI were lower when mindfulness was high. This suggests that there is a moderate linear relationship between mindfulness and insomnia. This association needs to be further evaluated in samples that have a broader range of ISI scores and with analyses that more carefully parse the moderating influence of depression. Analyses are ongoing. Support (If Any) Support: K24AG055602

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207