Associations Between Both Smartphone Addiction and Objectively Measured Smartphone Use and Sleep Quality and Duration Among University Students: Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The impact of smartphone use on sleep remains intensely debated. Most existing studies have used self-reported smartphone use data. Moreover, few studies have simultaneously examined associations between both smartphone addiction and objectively measured smartphone use and sleep, and the dose-response relationship between smartphone use and risk of poor sleep has been consistently overlooked, requiring systematic and further research on this topic. Objective: This study aimed to examine the associations between smartphone addiction and objectively measured smartphone use and sleep quality and duration. Methods: This cross-sectional study enrolled 17,713 participants from a university in China. We assessed objective smartphone screen time and unlocks by collecting screenshots of use records and measured smartphone addiction using a validated questionnaire. Sleep quality and duration were estimated via the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. Binary logistic regression, linear regression, and restricted cubic spline regression models were used for the analyses. Results: A total of 14.3% (2533/17,713) of the participants met the criterion for poor sleep, with a mean sleep duration of 507.1 (SD 103.2) minutes per night. Notably, university students with smartphone addiction exhibited 184% higher risk of poor sleep (odds ratio [OR] 2.84, 95% CI 2.59-3.11) and a 15.47-minute-shorter nighttime sleep duration (β=-15.47, 95% CI -18.53 to -12.42) compared to those without smartphone addiction. Regarding objectively measured smartphone use, participants with ≥63 hours per week of smartphone screen time had 22% higher odds of poor sleep (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.08-1.37) and a 6.66-minute-shorter nighttime sleep duration (β=-6.66, 95% CI -10.19 to -3.13) compared to those with 0 to 21 hours of screen time per week, whereas those with approximately 21 to 42 hours per week of smartphone screen time had a 5.47-minute-longer nighttime sleep duration (β=5.47, 95% CI 1.28-9.65). Similarly, compared to those with 0 to 50 smartphone unlocks per week, participants with ≥400 smartphone unlocks per week showed 61% higher odds of poor sleep (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.41-1.85) accompanied by a 4.09-minute-shorter nighttime sleep duration (β=-4.09, 95% CI -8.08 to -0.09), whereas those with approximately 50 to 150 smartphone unlocks per week had a 5.84-minute-longer sleep duration (β=5.84, 95% CI 2.32-9.36). An inverted U-shaped association between smartphone screen time and sleep duration was observed (P<.001 for nonlinearity). Conclusions: Smartphone addiction, excessive objectively measured smartphone screen time, and unlocks are positively associated with both sleep quality and duration. Restricted cubic spline analyses revealed different nuanced dose-response relationships, with an inverted U-shaped association observed between smartphone screen time and sleep duration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".