4.6 Article

Sleep quality in students: Associations with psychological and lifestyle factors

Journal

CURRENT PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 42, Issue 6, Pages 4601-4608

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12144-021-01801-9

Keywords

Sleep quality; Chronotype; Depressive symptoms; Lifestyle

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Psychological and lifestyle factors, including eveningness chronotype, depressive symptoms, less use of the emotion regulation strategy 'putting into perspective', and smoking, are independently associated with poorer subjective sleep quality in a large sample of Dutch university students.
Disturbed sleep is prevalent in adult populations and has been associated with negative health outcomes. This cross-sectional study assessed how psychological and lifestyle factors relate to subjective sleep quality in university students. In a large (N = 1114) sample of Dutch university students we assessed chronotype (Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire), depressive symptoms (Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms), cognitive emotion regulation styles (Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire), and substance use (caffeine, alcohol, smoking, cannabis), and analysed whether these factors were related to subjective sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index). The sample was predominantly (77.8%) female, mean age 21.1 (SD = 2.9) years, and 42.8% had clinically significant poor subjective sleep quality. More eveningness (B = -.05, p = .001), more depressive symptoms (B = .31, p = .001), less use of the emotion regulation strategy 'putting into perspective' (B = -.06, p = .02) and smoking (B = .53, p = .02) were independently associated with poorer subjective sleep quality. More eveningness, more depressive symptoms, less use of the emotion regulation style 'putting into perspective' and smoking were independently associated with poorer subjective sleep quality in a large sample of Dutch university students.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available