Insufficient sleep, impaired sleep and medically treated injury in Canadian adolescents: a national cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Insufficient and impaired sleep are common in adolescents and can adversely impact health and well-being. One likely consequence of poor sleep is a risk of unintentional injuries, yet the evidence base is limited for such relationships. We, therefore, documented contemporary sleeping behaviours of young people in Canada and examined relationships between these behaviours and risks for injury. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was employed using records from the 2017/2018 Canadian Health Behaviour in School-aged Children study (n=21 745). Indicators of poor sleep (insufficient sleep on school and non-school days, impaired sleep, daytime sleepiness) and annual reports of medically treated injuries (any, serious) were obtained. Descriptive and hierarchical modified Poisson regression analyses were performed to explore these relationships, while controlling for potential confounders. RESULTS: Insufficient sleep, impaired sleep and daytime sleepiness were reported by 11.3-35.3% of adolescents; variations in these estimates were observed by gender. Sleep indicators were modestly but consistently associated with risks for the occurrence of 'any injury', whereas impaired sleep and daytime sleepiness were the only meaningful and significant risk factors for 'serious injuries' in adjusted models (prevalence ratio range: 1.18-1.30). The analysis of interactions revealed boys with insufficient sleep on non-school days as well as impaired sleep to have higher injury risks compared with girls. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Impaired sleep and its effects have emerged as a quiet epidemic, affecting up to one-third of Canadian adolescents and being associated with risks for injury. Sleep hygiene may therefore act as a plausible focus for clinical and public health initiatives to mitigate injury risks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".