The differing relationships between academic discipline, sleep hygiene, and dysfunctional sleep attitudes on sleep quality and duration in Canadian university students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives This study sought to understand how university student’s academic discipline relates to sleep factors including attitudes, hygiene, quality, and duration. Methods Using a cross-sectional approach, a 30-min survey was advertised to students at two Canadian universities in March of 2022. Sleep measures included the Dysfunctional Beliefs and Attitudes Scale, the Sleep Hygiene Index, the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and the Insomnia Severity Index. Academic discipline was categorized into four groups: Health, Arts, Sciences, and Engineering. Multiple linear regressions were used to investigate (1) the effect of academic discipline on sleep measures, and (2) the effect of academic discipline, dysfunctional sleep attitudes, and sleep hygiene practices on insomnia, sleep quality and duration. Results 1,566 students completed the survey (69.4% women; 80.3% undergraduates). Compared to Health students, Art students had worse dysfunctional sleep attitudes, hygiene, quality, and insomnia severity (p < 0.001). This relationship disappeared after controlling for differences in mental health (p ≥ 0.05). Art students had longer sleep durations (p < 0.01), whereas Engineering students had shorter sleep durations (p < 0.05). When dysfunctional sleep attitudes and hygiene were included in the model, both academic discipline (p < 0.05) and sleep hygiene (p < 0.001) were associated with sleep duration. Sleep hygiene and attitudes were also associated with sleep quality and insomnia severity (p < 0.001), while academic discipline was not (p ≥ 0.05). Discussion These results suggest differences in sleep quality across academic discipline are impacted by dysfunctional sleep attitudes, sleep hygiene, and mental health, whereas differences in sleep duration appear to be independent of these factors. Overall, students in different academic disciplines have unique relationships with sleep and thus may require targeted approaches to improve their sleep. Future interventions should focus on supporting sleep hygiene and attitudes to improve students’ sleep and well-being.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".