Exploring the Relationship Between Sleep Hygiene Recommendations and Outcomes in Sleep, Fatigue, and Cognitive Performance Among Student-Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Varesco, G, Germain, M, Szocs, S, Martin, A, Toussaint, P-M, and Simonelli, G. Exploring the relationship between sleep hygiene recommendations and outcomes in sleep, fatigue, and cognitive performance among student-athletes. J Strength Cond Res 40(1): 48-55, 2026-Student-athletes often neglect sleep because of academic and training demands, highlighting the value of interventions targeting poor sleep habits. However, sleep hygiene research remains limited to individualized approaches, limiting reproducibility and posing challenges for implementation in large groups, such as collegiate sports teams. In this 4-week study, we assessed the sleep health of an elite collegiate Canadian football team through questionnaires (week 1). Players with poor sleep habits (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index > 5; 24 out of 64) participated in a 2-week sleep hygiene intervention. After a familiarization session (week 2), they completed 2 weeks of sleep assessment (actigraphy, sleep diary) and a post-training test, including a fatigue 10-cm visual analog scale, psychomotor vigilance task (PVT), and paced visual serial addition test (PVSAT). Subjects were unaware to be selected based on their poor sleep habits. After week 3, athletes received feedback on poor sleep habits and standardized written, evidence-based sleep hygiene recommendations. They were asked to comply with these recommendations before repeating experimental procedures at the end of week 4. Improvements were observed only in perceived total sleep time (sleep duration; 7:43 ± 1:29 vs. 8:03 ± 1:34 h:mm, p = 0.045) and PVSAT performance (1.44 ± 1.8 vs. 1.36 ± 1.63 seconds, p = 0.004), while PVT speed decreased (3.6 ± 0.4 vs. 3.5 ± 0.4 Hz, p = 0.043). Objective sleep duration (6:53 ± 1:19 vs. 7:04 ± 1:19 h:mm, p = 0.21), fatigue (6 ± 2.1 vs. 5.8 ± 2.1 AU, p = 0.55), and other outcomes remained unchanged ( p > 0.37). These results indicate that unsupervised and standardized sleep hygiene recommendations were not associated with changes in sleep habits, with changes in cognitive performance and fatigue level that could not be reconducted to better sleep.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".