MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4393059946 · doi:10.2196/49396

Assessment of Stress and Well-Being of Japanese Employees Using Wearable Devices for Sleep Monitoring Combined With Ecological Momentary Assessment: Pilot Observational Study

2024· article· en· W4393059946 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shotaro Kinoshita, Sayaka Hanashiro, Shiori Tsutsumi, Kiko Shiga, Momoko Kitazawa, Y Wada, Jun Inaishi, Kazuhiro Kashiwagi, Toshikazu Fukami, Yasumasa Mashimo, Kazumichi Minato, Taishiro Kishimoto

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoodQuartileHeart rate variabilityObservational studyPsychologySleep deprivationMultilevel modelMedicineBonferroni correctionStressorSleep (system call)Physical therapyClinical psychologyHeart ratePsychiatryInternal medicineCognitionComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Poor sleep quality can elevate stress levels and diminish overall well-being. Japanese individuals often experience sleep deprivation, and workers have high levels of stress. Nevertheless, research examining the connection between objective sleep assessments and stress levels, as well as overall well-being, among Japanese workers is lacking. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the correlation between physiological data, including sleep duration and heart rate variability (HRV), objectively measured through wearable devices, and 3 states (sleepiness, mood, and energy) assessed through ecological momentary assessment (EMA) and use of rating scales for stress and well-being. METHODS: A total of 40 office workers (female, 20/40, 50%; mean age 40.4 years, SD 11.8 years) participated in the study. Participants were asked to wear a wearable wristband device for 8 consecutive weeks. EMA regarding sleepiness, mood, and energy levels was conducted via email messages sent by participants 4 times daily, with each session spaced 3 hours apart. This assessment occurred on 8 designated days within the 8-week timeframe. Participants' stress levels and perception of well-being were assessed using respective self-rating questionnaires. Subsequently, participants were categorized into quartiles based on their stress and well-being scores, and the sleep patterns and HRV indices recorded by the Fitbit Inspire 2 were compared among these groups. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to assess differences between the quartiles, with adjustments made for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Furthermore, EMA results and the sleep and HRV indices were subjected to multilevel analysis for a comprehensive evaluation. RESULTS: The EMA achieved a total response rate of 87.3%, while the Fitbit Inspire 2 wear rate reached 88.0%. When participants were grouped based on quartiles of well-being and stress-related scores, significant differences emerged. Specifically, individuals in the lowest stress quartile or highest subjective satisfaction quartile retired to bed earlier (P<.001 and P=.01, respectively), whereas those in the highest stress quartile exhibited greater variation in the midpoint of sleep (P<.001). A multilevel analysis unveiled notable relationships: intraindividual variability analysis indicated that higher energy levels were associated with lower deviation of heart rate during sleep on the preceding day (β=-.12, P<.001), and decreased sleepiness was observed on days following longer sleep durations (β=-.10, P<.001). Furthermore, interindividual variability analysis revealed that individuals with earlier midpoints of sleep tended to exhibit higher energy levels (β=-.26, P=.04). CONCLUSIONS: Increased sleep variabilities, characterized by unstable bedtime or midpoint of sleep, were correlated with elevated stress levels and diminished well-being. Conversely, improved sleep indices (eg, lower heart rate during sleep and earlier average bedtime) were associated with heightened daytime energy levels. Further research with a larger sample size using these methodologies, particularly focusing on specific phenomena such as social jet lag, has the potential to yield valuable insights. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN-CTR UMIN000046858; https://center6.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000053392.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.351 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicSleep and related disorders→French-language works237,207→