Changes in sleep and the prevalence of probable insomnia in undergraduate university students over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from the U-Flourish cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sleep problems associated with poor mental health and academic outcomes may have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. AIMS: To describe sleep in undergraduate students during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: This longitudinal analysis included data from 9523 students over 4 years (2018-2022), associated with different pandemic phases. Students completed a biannual survey assessing risk factors, mental health symptoms and lifestyle, using validated measures. Sleep was assessed with the Sleep Condition Indicator (SCI-8). Propensity weights and multivariable log-binomial regressions were used to compare sleep in four successive first-year cohorts. Linear mixed-effects models were used to examine changes in sleep over academic semesters and years. RESULTS: -trend < 0.001) before and up to the peak of the pandemic. Sleep improved somewhat in autumn 2021, when restrictions loosened. Students commonly reported daytime sleep problems, including mood, energy, relationships (36-48%) and concentration, productivity, and daytime sleepiness (54-66%). There was a consistent pattern of worsening sleep over the academic year. Probable insomnia was associated with increased cannabis use and passive screen time, and reduced recreation and exercise. CONCLUSIONS: Sleep difficulties are common and persistent in students, were amplified by the pandemic and worsen over the academic year. Given the importance of sleep for well-being and academic success, a preventive focus on sleep hygiene, healthy lifestyle and low-intensity sleep interventions seems justified.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".