Sleep During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Longitudinal Observational Study Combining Multisensor Data With Questionnaires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic prompted various containment strategies, such as work-from-home policies and reduced social contact, which significantly altered people's sleep routines. While previous studies have highlighted the negative impacts of these restrictions on sleep, they often lack a comprehensive perspective that considers other factors, such as seasonal variations and physical activity (PA), which can also influence sleep. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to longitudinally examine the detailed changes in sleep patterns among working adults during the COVID-19 pandemic using a combination of repeated questionnaires and high-resolution passive measurements from wearable sensors. We investigate the association between sleep and 5 sets of variables: (1) demographics; (2) sleep-related habits; (3) PA behaviors; and external factors, including (4) pandemic-specific constraints and (5) seasonal variations during the study period. METHODS: We recruited working adults in Finland for a 1-year study (June 2021-June 2022) conducted during the late stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. We collected multisensor data from fitness trackers worn by participants, as well as work and sleep-related measures through monthly questionnaires. Additionally, we used the Stringency Index for Finland at various points in time to estimate the degree of pandemic-related lockdown restrictions during the study period. We applied linear mixed models to examine changes in sleep patterns during this late stage of the pandemic and their association with the 5 sets of variables. RESULTS: The sleep patterns of 27,350 nights from 112 working adults were analyzed. Stricter pandemic measures were associated with an increase in total sleep time (TST) (β=.003, 95% CI 0.001-0.005; P<.001) and a delay in midsleep (MS) (β=.02, 95% CI 0.02-0.03; P<.001). Individuals who tend to snooze exhibited greater variability in both TST (β=.15, 95% CI 0.05-0.27; P=.006) and MS (β=.17, 95% CI 0.03-0.31; P=.01). Occupational differences in sleep pattern were observed, with service staff experiencing longer TST (β=.37, 95% CI 0.14-0.61; P=.004) and lower variability in TST (β=-.15, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.05; P<.001). Engaging in PA later in the day was associated with longer TST (β=.03, 95% CI 0.02-0.04; P<.001) and less variability in TST (β=-.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.00; P=.02). Higher intradaily variability in rest activity rhythm was associated with shorter TST (β=-.26, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.23; P<.001), earlier MS (β=-.29, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.26; P<.001), and reduced variability in TST (β=-.16, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.09; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study provided a comprehensive view of the factors affecting sleep patterns during the late stage of the pandemic. As we navigate the future of work after the pandemic, understanding how work arrangements, lifestyle choices, and sleep quality interact will be crucial for optimizing well-being and performance in the workforce.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".