Reciprocal Effects between Sleep Quality and Life Satisfaction in Older Adults: The Mediating Role of Health Status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: to examine the causal relationship between sleep quality and life satisfaction and explore the mediating role of health status on the relationship between sleep quality and life satisfaction. METHODS: A total of 1856 older Chinese people participating in 2011, 2014, and 2018 waves of the Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey (CLHLS) were included. A cross-lagged panel analysis (CLPA) combined with mediator analysis was utilized. RESULTS: The average sleep quality levels for the years 2011, 2014, and 2018 were 3.70, 3.63, and 3.47 out of 5, respectively. The corresponding average levels of health status were 3.47, 3.44, and 3.39 out of 5, and the average levels of life satisfaction were 3.75, 3.86, and 3.87 out of 5, respectively. In addition, sleep quality at prior assessment points was significantly associated with life quality at subsequent assessments, and vice versa. Also, health status partially mediated this prospective reciprocal relationship. CONCLUSIONS: There is a nonlinear decreased trend in sleep quality and health status, while there exists a nonlinear increased trend in life satisfaction for older adults from 2011 to 2018. Reciprocal positive effects between sleep quality and life satisfaction in older adults exist and are mediated by health status.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".