Associations between parental relationship dissolution and child sleep: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parental relationship dissolution is considered one of the most common adverse childhood experiences. Although sleep is crucial for healthy development of children and very sensitive to environmental changes, it is poorly studied in the context of parental relationship dissolution. The aim of the current study was to systematically review and critically assess the existing literature on the associations between parental relationship dissolution and child sleep (0-18 years old; registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021272720)). PsycInfo, MEDLINE, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, Social Work abstracts, and Web of Science Core Collection were searched. Published empirical quantitative studies were included if they reported statistics regarding the association between parental relationship dissolution and any child sleep variable. Out of the 358 articles screened, 14 articles met inclusion criteria and reported on several sleep dimensions: sleep quality, dreams and nightmares, and sleep disorders (enuresis, night terrors, and bruxism). Out of the 14 articles, six were longitudinal studies and eight were cross-sectional studies. While most studies found that parental relationship dissolution was associated with some indices of poorer child sleep, studies were generally of low to moderate quality. Health professionals should assess child sleep in the context of a parental relationship dissolution.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".