4.4 Article

Technology Use and Sleep Quality in Preadolescence and Adolescence

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL SLEEP MEDICINE
Volume 11, Issue 12, Pages 1433-1441

Publisher

AMER ACAD SLEEP MEDICINE
DOI: 10.5664/jcsm.5282

Keywords

technology; circadian preferences; sleep quality; preadolescence; adolescence; electronic media

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Study Objectives: The purpose of this study was to analyze differences between preadolescents and adolescents on the use of technology and to test the contribution of using Internet and mobile phone, and circadian preference on sleep quality. Methods: We recruited a sample of 850 (364 males) preadolescents and adolescents. Self-report questionnaires about sleep schedule, sleep wake behavior problems, circadian preferences, and the use of technology (e.g., Internet and mobile phone) were administered. Students were asked to fill out the School Sleep Habits Survey, a self-report questionnaire on the use of technology, the Mobile Phone Involvement Questionnaire (MPIQ), and the Shorter Promis Questionnaire (SPQ). Results: Adolescents reported more sleep problems, a tendency toward eveningness, and an increase of Internet and phone activities, as well as social network activities, while preadolescents were more involved in gaming console and television viewing. The regression analysis performed separately in the two age groups showed that sleep quality was affected by the circadian preference (eveningness) in both groups. Adolescents' bad sleep quality was consistently associated with the mobile phone use and number of devices in the bedroom, while in preadolescents, with Internet use and turning-off time. Conclusions: The evening circadian preference, mobile phone and Internet use, numbers of other activities after 21:00, late turning off time, and number of devices in the bedroom have different negative influence on sleep quality in preadolescents and adolescents.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available