Associations between bedtime media use and sleep outcomes in an adult population-based cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To further examine the relationship between bedtime media use and sleep in adults by taking relevant covariates into account and testing hypothesised mediating and moderating pathways. METHODS: Bedtime media use and sleep outcomes were examined by questionnaire in 4188 adults (59 % women, aged 19-94 years) from the Specchio cohort based in Geneva, Switzerland. We tested associations between bedtime media use and sleep (bedtimes, rise times, sleep latency, sleep duration, sleep quality, insomnia, and daytime sleepiness), adjusting for prior sleep, mental health, and health behaviours; whether bedtime media use mediates associations between individual susceptibility factors (age, chronotype, and mental health) and sleep; and whether individual susceptibility factors moderate associations between bedtime media use and sleep. RESULTS: Often using a screen in the 30 minutes before going to sleep at night was associated with a late bedtime (≥midnight; OR [95 % CI] = 1.90 [1.44,2.51], p < 0.001), a short sleep duration (<7 h; 1.21 [1.01,1.46], p < 0.05), and excessive daytime sleepiness (Epworth score >9; 1.47 [1.25,1.74], p < 0.001), adjusting for all covariates. Bedtime media use partly mediated the association between younger age and an evening chronotype and these sleep outcomes. Mental health moderated the association between bedtime media use and sleep quality/insomnia, such that the former was only associated with poorer sleep quality/insomnia among individuals with better mental health. CONCLUSIONS: Frequent bedtime media use was associated with various sleep outcomes, independently of relevant covariates. Limiting the use of screens at bedtime is important to promote sleep among adults. Individuals with poorer mental health likely require additional support to improve their sleep quality.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".