MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison Of Device-measured Sleep Behaviors In Home Vs. Office Work Locations.

2024· article· en· W4402662677 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anthony J. Holmes, Kelliann K. Davis, Lee Stoner, Joshua L. Paley, Bethany Barone Gibbs, Christopher E. Kline

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and Work-Related Fatigue
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSleep (system call)Work (physics)PsychologyComputer scienceMedicineEngineeringOperating systemMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Healthy sleep behaviors can positively influence 24-hour movement behaviors and health outcomes. Working from home (WFH) has become common and may impact sleep by adding flexibility to the workday; however, little is known about the sleep behaviors of those who WFH vs. in-office workers. This study examined device-measured sleep duration across work locations and odds of meeting the sleep recommendation from the Canadian 24-hour movement guidelines. Methods: This secondary analysis utilized baseline data from the RESET BP clinical trial. RESET BP recruited inactive, desk-based workers with untreated elevated blood pressure. Worksite location (home vs. in-office) was determined by self-report. The RESET SLEEP ancillary study was conducted in a subset of RESET BP participants (n = 174, in-office n = 96, n = 78 mean age: 44.2 ± 10.7 years, 50% women) and added sleep measurement by a wrist worn Actiwatch for 7 days. For this analysis, we used device-measured mean total sleep time (TST) to align with the sleep guideline that recommends “7-9 hours of good quality sleep”. We also assessed the odds of meeting this guideline. Linear regression compared TST, and logistic regression calculated the odds of meeting the sleep guideline across work locations, adjusting for age and job sector where appropriate. Results: Demographic characteristics did not differ across worksite location (p > 0.05). Overall, participants spent an average of 7.06 ± 0.77 (SD) hours/day sleeping. TST significantly differed across groups (p = 0.03), with office-based workers obtaining 6.94 ± 0.76 hours of sleep each night, while home-based workers obtained 7.20 ± 0.09 hours of sleep each night. Odds of meeting the 24-hour movement sleep guideline was 23% lower in those who worked in-office (OR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.34, 1.73; p = 0.53). Conclusion: Home workers obtained more sleep than those who worked in an office and were non significantly more likely to meet the sleep duration guideline. Further research is required to understand the determinants of this increase in TST and to determine the physical and mental outcomes associated with this difference in sleep behaviors. Supported by the National Institutes of Health R01 HL134809, R01 HL147610, and UL1TR001857.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicSleep and Work-Related FatigueFrench-language works237,207