0401 Factors Associated with Insomnia in Male University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction University students can experience high levels of stress, and this can impact sleep quality and increase insomnia symptomology. Little research has investigated insomnia in male university students. This study examined factors associated with insomnia in male students to address concerns and direct resources. Methods Male students aged 18-35 at Memorial University completed an online survey. The Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) was used as the dependent variable to measure insomnia. Participants self-reported demographic and academic variables and also completed the Morning Evening Questionnaire (MEQ), Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS), Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey (MOS-SSS), Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10), and indicated sleep medication and stimulant use. Univariate and multivariate linear regressions were used to examine the relationship between insomnia and demographic factors, chronotype, social support, mindfulness, psychological distress, and sleep medication and stimulant use. Results The majority of participants (n=564; Mage = 23) were white (77.8%), undergraduates (76.3%), and enrolled full-time (90.7%). The mean insomnia severity score was 7.7 (SD = 5.42). Overall, 46% scored in the no insomnia range, 36% scored in the subthreshold insomnia range, 16% scoring in the clinical insomnia (moderate severity) range, and 2% scored in the clinical insomnia (severe) range. At the univariate level, sleep medication use (β = -.275, p < .001), stimulant use (β = -.158, p < .001), chronotype (β = -.344, p < .001), social support (β = -.244, p < .001), mindfulness (β = -.409, p < .001), and distress (β = .577, p < .001), were significantly associated with insomnia symptom severity. In the multivariate model (Adjusted R2 = .40, p < .001), only evening chronotype (β = -.195, p < .001), greater distress (β = .429, p < .001), and sleep medication use (β = -.139, p < .001) remained significantly related to insomnia. Conclusion This study identified factors associated with insomnia in male university students. Addressing insomnia, particularly in those with evening chronotype and those who use sleeping medication, may improve psychological distress and the overall well-being of male university students. Support (if any) Dr. Sheila Garland is supported by a Canadian Cancer Society Emerging Scholar Award (Survivorship) (grant #707146).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".