Advancing Patient-Centered Care: An International Survey of Adolescent Perspectives on Insomnia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to inform patient-centered care for adolescent insomnia by describing adolescents' perspectives on insomnia. Specific constructs of interest included: 1) factors that contributed to insomnia development or maintenance, 2) impact of insomnia on day-to-day life, 3) recommended research priorities, and 4) overall experience living with insomnia. METHOD: = 3,014) completed an online survey. Responses to an open-ended item assessing patient experience were coded using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants identified as 70.8% White non-Hispanic, 77.0% female, and lived in one of five English-speaking countries (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand). Most (87.5%) met DSM-V diagnostic criteria for insomnia. The most common contributory factors to insomnia endorsed were stress (72.1%) and depressed mood (63.6%), while common impact areas were mood (72.2%), focus (61.0%), and pain (49.7%). Patient-centered research priorities were identifying insomnia causes (66.4%) and early detection (66.1%). Common adolescent experiences included high distress levels, feelings of invalidation, and helplessness about their insomnia. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents with insomnia offer a unique perspective that should inform patient-centered research and care. There is a need for heightened screening and awareness about insomnia as a condition that causes significant distress and impairment for adolescents. To provide validating care, providers should recognize the multifaceted causes of insomnia.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".