MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408290838 · doi:10.2196/67223

Predictors of the Intention to Stop Using Smart Devices at Bedtime Among University Students in Saudi Arabia: Cross-Sectional Survey

2025· article· en· W4408290838 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Manal Almalki

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBedtimeSleep (system call)Pittsburgh Sleep Quality IndexCross-sectional studyPsychologyMedicineMorningSleep qualityApplied psychologyGerontologyPhysical therapyComputer sciencePsychiatryInsomnia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The widespread use of smart devices, particularly among university students, has raised concerns about their impact on sleep quality. Bedtime usage of smart devices is associated with sleep disruptions and poor sleep quality. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the behavioral and perceptual factors influencing university students' intention to stop using smart devices at bedtime in Saudi Arabia. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in June 2024 and distributed via social media platforms to university students (aged ≥18 years). The questionnaire collected data on demographics, smart device usage habits, perceived negative effects on sleep, and physical sleep disturbances. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index was used to assess sleep quality. Path analysis was performed to evaluate relationships between the outcome variables, intended to stop using smart device usage, and 3 latent variables: sleep quality smartphone usage, sleep quality perceived negative effects, and sleep quality during the past month. Model fit was assessed using chi-square, comparative fit index, and root mean square error of approximation. RESULTS: Of the 774 participants, 90.43% (700/774) reported using their smart devices every night and 72.48% (561/774) believed bedtime device use negatively affected them the next morning. The most frequently reported next-morning symptoms were fatigue or drowsiness (480/774, 62.01%). Common purposes for bedtime device use were staying in touch with friends or family (432/774, 55.81%), entertainment (355/774, 45.86%), and filling up spare time (345/774, 44.57%). Overall, 58.26% (451/774) expressed an intention to stop bedtime device use within the next 3 months. Path analysis demonstrated that frequent nightly use (path coefficient=0.36) and after-lights-off usage (0.49) were positively associated with the intention to stop, whereas spending ≥3 hours on devices (-0.35) and engaging in multiple activities (-0.18) had negative associations. The strongest predictors of the intention to stop were perceived negative effects on next-morning well-being (0.71) and difficulty breathing comfortably during sleep (0.64). Model fit was excellent (comparative fit index=0.845 and root mean square error of approximation=0.039). CONCLUSIONS: Perceived negative effects on sleep quality and physical sleep disturbances are strong predictors of the intention to stop using smart devices at bedtime among university students in Saudi Arabia. Interventions aimed at improving sleep hygiene should focus on raising awareness about the impact of smart device use on well-being and addressing behaviors such as late-night usage and heavy screen time. Public health strategies should target both psychological and physiological aspects of bedtime smart device use to improve sleep quality in this population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207