| Literature DB >> 34055416 |
Prayas Gautam1, Maginsh Dahal2, Kushalata Baral3, Rohit Acharya4, Sudip Khanal3, Aastha Kasaju5, Raj Kumar Sangroula5, Koshish Raj Gautam6, Kabita Pathak7, Anu Neupane5.
Abstract
Sleep quality has a long-term impact on health leading to depression among adolescent students. We conducted a cross-sectional study to assess the prevalence of sleep quality and its associated factors among adolescents of western, Nepal. 514 adolescents from different schools were selected by the probability proportionate to size (PPS) method. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) was used to assess the sleep quality among adolescents. The collected data were entered in EpiData 3.2 version, then extracted to excel 2019 and was analyzed with the help of RStudio (version 1.2.5033). Frequency distribution and percentage were identified as descriptive analysis whereas chi-square test was done. Variables that were found statistically significant (P < 0.05) were further analyzed using the logistic regression model. The prevalence of sleep quality in this study was 39.1%. In a bivariate analysis, ethnicity, religion, place of residence, drinking status of father, reason for selecting the currently studying faculty, satisfaction with academic performance, use of tobacco, relationship with friends or classmates, more use of internet per day, and use of internet before falling asleep were found to be statistically significant with sleep quality. Those students who left their home without informing their parents were more than three times at the risk of sleep quality than those students who never ran away from their home without informing their parents (AOR = 3.435, CI: 1.237-9.540). The overall prevalence of sleep quality among school going adolescent students was 39.1 percent which was comparatively high.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34055416 PMCID: PMC8143896 DOI: 10.1155/2021/5590715
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sleep Disord ISSN: 2090-3553
Demographic and economic characteristics of respondents and their family (n = 514).
| Characteristics |
|
|---|---|
| Age∗ | |
| ≤17 | 275 (53.5) |
| >17 | 239 (46.5) |
| Age mean age ± SD (years) 17.4 ± 0.9 | |
| Gender | |
| Male | 270 (52.5) |
| Ethnicity∗ | |
| Brahmin/Chhetri | 302 (58.8) |
| Religion∗ | |
| Hindu | 461 (89.7) |
| Place of residence∗ | |
| Urban | 401 (78.0) |
| Type of family | |
| Nuclear | 338 (65.8) |
| Family size | |
| >5 | 321 (62.5) |
| Mean ± SD5.51 ± 2.12 | |
| Parent marital status | |
| Married | 471 (91.6) |
| Monthly income of family(in NRs) | |
| ≤25000 | 301 (58.6) |
| >25000 | 213 (41.4) |
| Educational status of father | |
| ≤Secondary | 354 (68.9) |
| >Secondary | 160 (31.1) |
| Education status of mother | |
| ≤Secondary | 422 (82.1) |
| >Secondary | 92 (17.9) |
| Occupational status of father | |
| Agriculture | 202 (39.3) |
| Business/job | 275 (53.5) |
| Other# | 37 (7.2) |
| Occupational status of mother | |
| Agriculture | 291 (56.6) |
| Business/job | 211 (41.1) |
| Other ## | 12 (2.3) |
| Drinking habit of father∗∗ | |
| Yes | 195 (37.9) |
| Drinking habit of mother | |
| Yes | 25 (4.9) |
#Includes foreign employment and labour work, ##includes housewife, labour work, and foreign job. ∗∗∗, ∗∗, ∗Significant at <0.000, 0.01, and 0.05, respectively.
Figure 1Prevalence of sleep quality using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) (n = 514).
Educational, behavioral, and psychological characteristics of the respondents (n = 514).
| Characteristics |
|
|---|---|
| Educational | |
| Grade | |
| 11 | 287 (55.8) |
| 12 | 227 (44.2) |
| Type of school | |
| Public | 252 (49.1) |
| Private | 262 (50.9) |
| Faculty of the respondent | |
| Science | 149 (28.9) |
| Management | 211 (41.1) |
| Education | 154 (30.0) |
| Reason for selecting the currently studying faculty∗∗∗ | |
| Own decision | 413 (80.4) |
| Others# | 101 (19.6) |
| Achievement in last exam | |
| Pass | 402 (78.2) |
| Fail | 110 (21.4) |
| Satisfied with academic performance∗ | |
| Yes | 332 (64.6) |
| No | 182 (35.4) |
| Behavioral | |
| Tobacco users∗ | |
| No | 479 (93.2) |
| Alcohol users | |
| No | 482 (93.8) |
| Physical exercise | |
| Regularly | 62 (12.1) |
| Frequently | 51 (9.9) |
| Occasionally | 329 (64.0) |
| Rarely | 44 (8.6) |
| Never | 28 (5.4) |
| Participate in extracurricular activities | |
| Yes | 209 (56.3) |
| Time spend on internet (hours)∗∗∗ | |
| ≤ 2 | 266 (51.8) |
| > 2 | 248 (48.2) |
| Spend time on internet(hours) before going bed∗∗∗ | |
| ≤ 1 | 171 (33.3) |
| > 1 | 343 (66.7) |
| Psychological | |
| Conflict in family | |
| Yes | 406 (79.0) |
| Family members scold you∗∗∗ | |
| No | 478 (93.0) |
| Relationship with friends∗∗∗ | |
| Good | 253 (49.2) |
| Average | 178 (34.6) |
| Poor | 83 (16.2) |
| Relationship with teachers∗∗∗ | |
| Good | 166 (32.3) |
| Average | 220 (42.8) |
| Poor | 128 (24.9) |
| Have girlfriend/boyfriend | |
| No | 366 (71.2) |
| Felt lonely | |
| No | 363 (70.6) |
| Run away from home(ever in their life)∗∗∗ | |
| No | 473 (92.0) |
| Hurt own self | |
| No | 395 (76.8) |
| Sharing with parents | |
| Frequently | 107 (20.8) |
| Occasionally | 361 (70.2) |
| Rarely | 31 (6.1) |
| Never | 15 (2.9) |
| Sharing with friends | |
| Frequently | 209 (40.7) |
| Occasionally | 248 (48.2) |
| Rarely | 43 (8.4) |
| Never | 14 (2.7) |
#Includes failing to qualify in other faculty, family pressure, friends pressure. ∗∗∗, ∗∗, ∗Significant at <0.000, 0.01, and 0.05, respectively.
Multivariate analysis of factors associated with sleep quality.
| Characteristics | COR (95% CI)# | AOR (95% CI)## |
|---|---|---|
| Age (≤17 years) | 1.59 (1.12-2.27)∗ | 1.55 (1.03-2.33)∗ |
| Ethnicity (Brahmin/Chhetri) | 1.44 (1.01-2.07)∗ | 1.27 (0.80-2.02) |
| Religion (Hindu) | 2.11 (1.19-3.79)∗ | 1.46 (0.72-2.95) |
| Residence (urban) | 1.64 (1.08-2.51)∗ | 1.53 (0.92-2.52) |
| Tobacco user (no) | 2.38 (1.19-4.90)∗ | 0.98 (0.40-2.39) |
| Drinking status of father (yes) | 1.72 (1.20-2.48)∗ | 1.18 (0.77-1.81) |
| Reasons of selecting current study (own decision) | 1.54 (1.64-3.98)∗∗∗ | 1.77 (1.05-3.00)∗ |
| Satisfied with academic performance (yes) | 1.87 (1.22-2.86)∗ | 1.44 (0.86-2.40) |
| Family members scold you (no) | 5.01 (2.39-11.51)∗∗∗ | 2.13 (0.90-5.38) |
| Relationship with friends (good) | ||
| Average | 1.15 (0.77-1.72) | 1.01 (0.63-1.63) |
| Poor | 3.20 (1.92-5.40)∗∗∗ | 2.12 (1.13-4.00)∗ |
| Relationship with teachers (good) | ||
| Average | 1.37 (0.89-2.10) | 1.07 (0.64-1.78) |
| Poor | 2.90 (1.80-4.71)∗∗∗ | 1.24 (0.66-2.29) |
| Run away from home | 4.40 (2.06-8.42)∗∗∗ | 3.15 (1.44-7.21)∗∗ |
| Hours spent on internet(≤ 2) | 2.10 (1.47-3.10)∗∗∗ | 1.07 (0.66-1.72) |
| Hours spend on internet before going to bed(≤ 1) | 3.27 (2.24-4.81)∗∗∗ | 2.67 (1.61-4.48)∗∗∗ |
(): reference category. ∗∗∗, ∗∗, ∗Significant at <0.000, 0.01, and 0.05, respectively; #COR calculated from the bivariate logistic regression; ##AOR calculated from the multivariate logistic regression. Note: if, in the bivariate analysis, the variable was insignificant, it was not included in the multivariate analysis. Fitting null model for pseudo-R2 (pseudo-R2 was calculated by using the “Pscl” package). IIH: log‐likelihood from the fitted model = −296.14. IIhNull: the log‐likelihood from the intercept only restricted = −344.25. G2: minus two times the difference in the log‐likelihoods = 96.23. McFadden: McFadden′s pseudo − R2 = 0.14. R2ML: maximum likelihood pseudo − R2 = 0.17. R2CU: Cragg and Uhler′s pseudo − R2 = 0.23. The multicollinearity was assessed by using VIF (variance infection factor) by using “car” package; all the VIF were less than 5. So, there is no multicollinearity in this model.