Use of theories of health behavior in sleep promotion studies: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Sleep deprivation forms a vicious cycle with chronic diseases. This can be prevented by promoting behaviors conducive to restorative sleep. Although theories of health behavior can inform issues of behavior change, their use in the context of sleep promotion has not been yet comprehensively reviewed. Methods: A scoping review was conducted. Five electronic databases were searched: AgeLine, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, and PsychINFO. Additional studies were identified through reference chaining. Studies were included if theories of health behavior were mentioned, referenced and applied in relation to a sleep behavior. Study characteristics and data on theoretical applications were collected using a charting form. Quantitative findings were analyzed through frequency count, while qualitative findings were thematically analyzed. Results: Thirty-five studies with various method designs were included. Most studies targeted adults with obstructive sleep apnea (n=18) and students at risk of poor sleep hygiene (n=12). The application of twenty-two theories of health behavior was identified with three main ways of informing sleep promotion initiatives. Most of the evidence obtained from theoretical applications related to how personal beliefs, intentions to change and social influences can explain adherence to treatment for obstructive sleep apnea or the adoption of healthy sleep hygiene, and how these factors can be changed via theory-based interventions and program evaluations. Conclusions: This study provides public health researchers and health promoters synthesized evidence to deploy theorybased interventions that address many factors shown to influence treatment adherence for obstructive sleep apnea and healthy sleep hygiene. Limited evidence is provided on sleep behaviors pertinent to individuals affected with 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 | 0.054 | 0.141 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.056 | 0.041 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".