Sleep Patterns of Premedical Undergraduate Students: Pilot Study and Protocol Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Poor sleep hygiene persists in college students today, despite its heavy implications on adolescent development and academic performance. Although sleep patterns in undergraduates have been broadly investigated, no study has exclusively assessed the sleep patterns of premedical undergraduate students. A gap also exists in the knowledge of how students perceive their sleep patterns compared to their actual sleep patterns. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to address 2 research questions: What are the sleep patterns of premedical undergraduate students? Would the proposed study protocol be feasible to examine the perception of sleep quality and promote sleep behavioral changes in premedical undergraduate students? METHODS: An anonymous survey was conducted with premedical students in the Medical Science Baccalaureate program at an R1: doctoral university in the Midwest United States to investigate their sleep habits and understand their demographics. The survey consisted of both Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) questionnaire items (1-9) and participant demographic questions. To examine the proposed protocol feasibility, we recruited 5 students from the survey pool for addressing the perception of sleep quality and changes. These participants followed a 2-week protocol wearing Fitbit Inspire 2 watches and underwent preassessments, midassessments, and postassessments. Participants completed daily reflections and semistructured interviews along with PSQI questionnaires during assessments. RESULTS: According to 103 survey responses, premedical students slept an average of 7.1 hours per night. Only a quarter (26/103) of the participants experienced good sleep quality (PSQI<5), although there was no significant difference (P=.11) in the proportions of good (PSQI<5) versus poor sleepers (PSQI≥5) across cohorts. When students perceived no problem at all in their sleep quality, 50% (14/28) of them actually had poor sleep quality. Among the larger proportion of students who perceived sleep quality as only a slight problem, 26% (11/43) of them presented poor sleep quality. High stress levels were associated with poor sleep quality. This study reveals Fitbit as a beneficial tool in raising sleep awareness. Participants highlighted Fitbit elements that aid in comprehension such as being able to visualize their sleep stage breakdown and receive an overview of their sleep pattern by simply looking at their Fitbit sleep scores. In terms of protocol evaluation, participants believed that assessments were conducted within the expected duration, and they did not have a strong opinion about the frequency of survey administration. However, Fitbit was found to provide notable variation daily, leading to missing data. Moreover, the Fitbit app's feature description was vague and could lead to confusion. CONCLUSIONS: Poor sleep quality experienced by unaware premedical students points to a need for raising sleep awareness and developing effective interventions. Future work should refine our study protocol based on lessons learned and health behavior theories and use Fitbit as an informatics solution to promote healthy sleep behaviors.
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 | 0.174 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".