Usability of an eHealth sleep education intervention for university students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background It has been estimated that more than one-third of university students suffer from insomnia. Few accessible eHealth sleep education programmes exist for university students and of the ones that do exist, fewer were developed using a user-centred approach, which allows for student input to be systematically collected and utilized to provide students with a programme that they consider to be easy to use and implement and to be effective. Better Nights, Better Days-Youth ( BNBD-Youth) is a four-session eHealth sleep education programme designed for youth but previously only evaluated in younger adolescents (ages 14–18 years). Aims The purpose of this study is to evaluate the usability of the BNBD-Youth programme with university students using Morville's User Experience Honeycomb framework to determine if this programme would meet the needs of university students and if so what modifications would be needed. Methods Canadian undergraduate students ( n = 46) completed the BNBD-Youth programme. Students completed online usability questionnaires based on the seven dimensions of Morville's User Experience Honeycomb (i.e. useful, usable, valuable, credible, desirable, accessible and findable) after each session and after completion of the programme. Open- and closed-ended questions were used to obtain both quantitative and qualitative responses. Results Average quantitative ratings were positive across user experience dimensions, ranging from 3.43 to 4.46 (out of 5). Qualitative responses indicated overall positive experiences with the programme. The only constructive feedback that met the criteria for revising the programme was to include more interactive features in Session 4. Conclusions This study demonstrates that university students found BNBD-Youth to be a usable programme for older youth. Demonstrating usability is an essential step in developing a programme with a user-centred design that university students will want to use in the future. Once the BNBD-Youth programme is revised to create the BNBD-University ( BNBD-Uni) programme, additional usability and effectiveness testing will be conducted.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".