Students’, parents’ and teachers’ perspectives on comprehensive school-based sleep promotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Sleep deprivation is common among children and schools are ideal settings in which to influence children's sleep. Children spend a significant amount of time at school during key developmental periods, and programmes that influence students' well-being also benefit academic achievement. Comprehensive School Health (CSH) is an approach that prioritises school, home and community partnerships by supporting the development of health behaviours. However, sleep is often unaddressed in the school environment. The objective of this study was to integrate multiple partner perspectives to inform how to strengthen school-based sleep promotion using a CSH approach. Design: framework in alignment with the four components of the CSH approach: social and physical environment, teaching and learning, policy and partnerships and services. Inductive content analysis was used to develop categories followed by subthemes within each CSH component. Results: Subthemes identified within each component were as follows: social and physical environment (culture of healthy sleep habits; students influence each other); teaching and learning (formally integrate sleep-specific learning into curricula; school, teacher and parents/guardian collaboration); policy (sleep-positive classroom policies) and partnerships and services (community partnerships; school-home collaboration). Conclusion: This research identifies recommendations from student, parent/guardian and teacher interviews to inform and strengthen school-based sleep promotion when taking a CSH approach. Findings can support school partner efforts to foster a school culture (or ethos) of healthy sleep habits leading to improvements in student sleep behaviours.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".