
==== Front
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
JMU
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
2291-5222
JMIR Publications Toronto, Canada

v12i1e53389
39226100
10.2196/53389
Original Paper
Original Paper
Sleep During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Longitudinal Observational Study Combining Multisensor Data With Questionnaires
Buis Lorraine
Šćepanović Sanja
Mary Stella
Mitra Sayan
Luong Nguyen MSc https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0122-0286
1Department of Computer Science Aalto University Konemiehentie 2 Espoo, 02150 Finland 358 0442404485 nguyen.luong@aalto.fi

Mark Gloria PhD 2https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2492-2424

Kulshrestha Juhi PhD 1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4375-4641

Aledavood Talayeh PhD 1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0110-5694

1 Department of Computer Science Aalto University Espoo Finland
2 Informatics Department University of California, Irvine Irvine, CA United States
Corresponding Author: Nguyen Luong nguyen.luong@aalto.fi
2024
3 9 2024
12 e533895 10 2023
24 2 2024
19 4 2024
8 7 2024
©Nguyen Luong, Gloria Mark, Juhi Kulshrestha, Talayeh Aledavood. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (https://mhealth.jmir.org), 03.09.2024.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://mhealth.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic prompted various containment strategies, such as work-from-home policies and reduced social contact, which significantly altered people’s sleep routines. While previous studies have highlighted the negative impacts of these restrictions on sleep, they often lack a comprehensive perspective that considers other factors, such as seasonal variations and physical activity (PA), which can also influence sleep.

Objective

This study aims to longitudinally examine the detailed changes in sleep patterns among working adults during the COVID-19 pandemic using a combination of repeated questionnaires and high-resolution passive measurements from wearable sensors. We investigate the association between sleep and 5 sets of variables: (1) demographics; (2) sleep-related habits; (3) PA behaviors; and external factors, including (4) pandemic-specific constraints and (5) seasonal variations during the study period.

Methods

We recruited working adults in Finland for a 1-year study (June 2021-June 2022) conducted during the late stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. We collected multisensor data from fitness trackers worn by participants, as well as work and sleep-related measures through monthly questionnaires. Additionally, we used the Stringency Index for Finland at various points in time to estimate the degree of pandemic-related lockdown restrictions during the study period. We applied linear mixed models to examine changes in sleep patterns during this late stage of the pandemic and their association with the 5 sets of variables.

Results

The sleep patterns of 27,350 nights from 112 working adults were analyzed. Stricter pandemic measures were associated with an increase in total sleep time (TST) (β=.003, 95% CI 0.001-0.005; P<.001) and a delay in midsleep (MS) (β=.02, 95% CI 0.02-0.03; P<.001). Individuals who tend to snooze exhibited greater variability in both TST (β=.15, 95% CI 0.05-0.27; P=.006) and MS (β=.17, 95% CI 0.03-0.31; P=.01). Occupational differences in sleep pattern were observed, with service staff experiencing longer TST (β=.37, 95% CI 0.14-0.61; P=.004) and lower variability in TST (β=–.15, 95% CI –0.27 to –0.05; P<.001). Engaging in PA later in the day was associated with longer TST (β=.03, 95% CI 0.02-0.04; P<.001) and less variability in TST (β=–.01, 95% CI –0.02 to 0.00; P=.02). Higher intradaily variability in rest activity rhythm was associated with shorter TST (β=–.26, 95% CI –0.29 to –0.23; P<.001), earlier MS (β=–.29, 95% CI –0.33 to –0.26; P<.001), and reduced variability in TST (β=–.16, 95% CI –0.23 to –0.09; P<.001).

Conclusions

Our study provided a comprehensive view of the factors affecting sleep patterns during the late stage of the pandemic. As we navigate the future of work after the pandemic, understanding how work arrangements, lifestyle choices, and sleep quality interact will be crucial for optimizing well-being and performance in the workforce.

computational social science
digital health
COVID-19
sleep
longitudinal
wearables
surveys
observational study
isolation
sleep patterns
sleep pattern
questionnaires
Finland
fitness trackers
fitness tracker
wearable
sleeping habits
sleeping habit
work from home
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Background

Sleep is a crucial component of daily life, closely interconnected with all aspects of our routines and overall well-being, including mental health [1,2], physical health [3], and work performance [4,5]. The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly impacted various aspects of daily life, with sleep patterns being a particularly significant area of concern. However, the effects on sleep were often indirect, resulting from changes in daily routines and lifestyle adjustments rather than being a direct consequence of the virus.

In response to the pandemic, outdoor restrictions limited our exposure to natural daylight, a crucial element for regulating circadian rhythms and sleep patterns [6]. Similarly, mobility restrictions altered daily physical activity (PA) patterns. Additionally, workplace restrictions led to work-from-home policies, which resulted in reduced mobility and flexible working hours. While these changes led to more relaxed work schedules, they also blurred the boundaries between professional and personal life. Notably, factors such as daylight exposure, PA, and work routines—each significantly affected by the pandemic—are well-established influences on sleep health [7,8].

Traditional sleep measurements often rely on self-reported methods, such as the Karolinska [9] or Pittsburgh sleep diary [10]. While these methods are effective for tracking day-to-day sleep over short periods, conducting diary studies over longer intervals is generally not feasible due to the cognitive burden on participants. Nonintrusive measurements using smartphones and fitness trackers have recently emerged as a more viable alternative for capturing sleep data over extended periods. While consumer-grade devices may not precisely detect sleep stages, they have shown promising results for measuring sleep onset, duration, and wake-up time. Assessing sleep with these devices has the advantage of capturing data in people’s natural living environments, unlike sleep laboratories. Additionally, this method is not subject to memory biases that can occur with survey responses and sleep diaries.

The evolution of mobile health (mHealth) technologies has significantly enhanced traditional sleep monitoring methods, particularly through the use of wearable devices. These devices offer a more accessible and less invasive way to monitor sleep patterns, while also deepening our understanding of sleep-related phenomena. For instance, wearable devices have been used to determine individuals’ chronotypes and track their sleep and activity rhythms over extended periods [11,12]. They have also been used to measure sleep alignment between coworkers [13], examine the relationship between sleep and burnout [14], and assess sleep patterns in various populations, including patients with mental disorders [15]. Several studies have confirmed the validity and reliability of wearable devices, demonstrating notable sensitivity compared with the gold-standard polysomnography (PSG). For example, a review of 7 consumer sleep-tracking devices [16] highlighted their high effectiveness in detecting sleep relative to PSG. Similarly, a study [17] evaluated 6 consumer wearable devices and validated their accuracy in assessing sleep timing and duration compared with PSG.

Prior research comparing sleep patterns before and during the pandemic has revealed notable differences. Studies found that following the pandemic’s onset, individuals tended to go to bed later [18], slept for longer durations [19], exhibited reduced variability between weekday and weekend sleep [20,21], and experienced increased sleep disturbances or diminished sleep quality [22]. Various factors have been identified as contributing to these disruptions in sleep routines, including decreased PA [23], social isolation [24], increased use of electronic devices [4], and the shift to working from home [13].

While previous studies have focused on the immediate consequences of lockdowns and restriction policies, less attention has been paid to the long-term effects, particularly during the late stages of the pandemic when restrictions began to relax. This phase is crucial for understanding the residual effects of the pandemic on sleep patterns and how quickly individuals revert to their prepandemic sleep habits. The transition to working from home as the default mode has resulted in a less constrained work-life routine, leading to more flexible sleep-wake schedules. Certain demographics may benefit more from these transitions, such as individuals with more flexible routines (eg, research personnel) or those who tend to snooze their alarms after waking, referred to as “snoozers.” Additionally, occupation is a known factor influencing sleep patterns, with a classic example being the contrast between shift workers and nonshift workers [25,26]. However, less is understood about the differences between various roles within academia, such as researchers with deadline-driven roles and administrative personnel typically following a 9-to-5 schedule. Therefore, a comprehensive, longitudinal analysis of sleep patterns that includes these variables and extends into the late stages of the pandemic is important.

Objectives

Our study aims to provide a holistic view of how the pandemic has influenced sleep patterns. We evaluate the long-term relationships between sleep patterns, including average and variability in total sleep duration and sleep timing, alongside individuals’ characteristics (demographics, occupation, and PA) and external factors (stringency of restriction policies and seasonal variations). Our research utilizes longitudinal data from fitness trackers and questionnaire responses collected from working adults at a Finnish university. This extensive data set enables us to examine shifts in sleep behavior during the later stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, from June 2021 to June 2022. The study’s timeframe covers a full annual seasonal cycle, which is crucial for analyzing sleep patterns in Finland, where significant seasonal changes and daylight variations occur due to its northern latitude.

Methods

Study Data

This work used data from the cor:ona (comparison of rhythms: old vs. new) study [27] as part of a 1-year multimodal data set of working adults.

Ethics Approval

The study was approved by the Aalto University Research Ethics Committee (approval number D/536/03.04/2021_COR_ONA).

Participants and Procedures

The cor:ona study recruited 128 full-time employees from a university in Finland for a 1-year investigation into how their daily activities changed during different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Throughout the study, participants wore a Polar Ignite fitness tracker (Polar Electro Oy), enabling us to unobtrusively collect various measures related to sleep and PA. In addition, participants completed an initial baseline questionnaire, an exit questionnaire, and a shorter version of the baseline questionnaire each month. The monthly questionnaires asked for information about their daily routines, work, and sleep quality over the past month. The detailed recruitment procedure and participants’ demographics were described in a previous study [27].

Fitness Tracker Data

Sleep Measures

The fitness trackers measured bedtime (defined as the recorded time when a person fell asleep), waketime (defined as the recorded time when a person woke up), and interruption duration (defined as the total time in seconds spent awake between sleep start and end times) for each day. A sleep period was defined as the longest sleep episode for each day. Sleep patterns were measured using 4 metrics: (1) total sleep time (TST), which measured the time a person spent asleep, calculated as the duration from bedtime minus the interruption duration; (2) midsleep (MS), the midpoint between bedtime and waketime, which was used to measure sleep timing and computed as (bedtime + TST)/2. Additionally, we proposed 2 other metrics to measure sleep regularity: (3) TST variability, computed as the SD of TST during weekdays (Sunday night to Thursday night); and (4) MS variability, computed as the SD of MS during weekdays. We focused exclusively on weekdays due to the expected differences between weekday and weekend sleep patterns. The Niimpy behavioral data analysis toolbox [28] was used for extracting sleep measurements.

Physical Activity Measures

The fitness tracker recorded the number of steps taken each hour, which were then summed to provide a daily step count. To comprehensively account for daily PA patterns, including their timing and distribution, we introduced 2 additional metrics: midstep and intradaily variability (IV) [29]. These metrics are designed to capture the timing and dispersion of PAs throughout the day. Specifically, midstep represents the hour of the day when half of the total number of steps is achieved, analogous to MS in the context of PA. By contrast, IV quantifies the fragmentation of the activity-rest rhythm and is measured as follows:

where N=24 is the total number of samples within each day; Xi is the i measurement sampled at P=60-minute interval; and is the average value of all samples in a day. Low IV indicates less fragmented activity-rest rhythm, whereas high IV could imply daytime naps or nighttime awakenings.

External Data

Seasonal data were collected from the World Weather Online developer application programming interface [30]. Given the significant variation in day length in Finland during the study (up to 13 hours), day length was used as a proxy for seasonal variables. The choice of day length as a proxy was motivated by Friborg et al [31]. The study compared 2 geographically distinct locations with substantial differences in day length variability: Ghana and Norway. Although no noticeable seasonal effects of day length were observed in Ghanaians, Norwegians showed a delay in both bedtime and waketime during summer weekdays, though sleep duration remained relatively unaffected.

We also utilized the Stringency Index (SI) [32], a composite measure ranging from 0 to 100, to assess daily COVID-19 restriction policies. Higher values on this index indicate more stringent COVID-19 restrictions, including measures such as school and workplace closures, the cancellation of public events, and the enforcement of stay-at-home orders. This index allows for standardized comparisons of policy responses across different countries or regions, as well as changes within the same region over time.

Questionnaire Data

Upon entering the study, participants completed a baseline questionnaire that collected basic background information, including age, gender, chronotype, occupation, and origin, among others. Chronotype was assessed using the reduced Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ) [33], with higher scores indicating a morning type and lower scores indicating an evening type. For the origin-related question, participants chose from 3 options: Finland, Europe (excluding Finland), or outside of Europe. Participants indicating they were from Finland were classified as Finnish, while those selecting other options were described as having a “migrant background.” Regarding occupation, participants specified whether they were academic or service staff. The term “academic staff” refers to individuals involved in academic and research activities within the organization, while “service staff” includes those in roles such as human resources and other administrative or support functions. Participants were determined as a snoozer if they answered “yes” to the following question: “Snoozing can be considered as choosing to go back to sleep after an alarm has awakened you intending to wake up later; setting the alarm earlier than when you intend to wake up; or setting multiple alarms with the intent to not wake up on the first alarm. Do you currently consider yourself a snoozer using this definition?,” as adapted from [34].

For the analysis of snoozer characteristics, we used the 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2) [35] and the short form of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) [10], averaging the values collected from the monthly questionnaires. Additionally, the short form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS-SF) [36] was used in the initial baseline questionnaire.

Data Exclusion and Preprocessing

Sleep data were restricted to the period from July 1, 2021, to May 31, 2022. Because of our rolling recruitment process, which started in mid-June 2021 and ended in June 2022, we excluded data from June of both years. This exclusion was necessary because we lacked complete data for these months, and including partial data could have introduced bias. A standard filter, adopted from [37], was applied to remove outliers in TST (TST<3 hours and TST>13 hours). Participants with fewer than 30 recorded nights due to dropout or technical issues were excluded. For gender-related analysis, nonbinary participants (n=1) were excluded to preserve their privacy. To maintain the interpretability of the relationships between sleep patterns and the examined variables, we chose not to normalize the dependent and independent variables.

Statistical Analysis

We used a logistic regression model to examine factors predicting snoozing behavior. Using snoozing behavior as the dependent variable, and to replicate the findings from [34], we included the same set of independent variables: age, gender, step count, TST, BIG-5 personality traits (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism), PANAS-SF, PHQ-2, PSQI, and MEQ. To further investigate the potential confounding effects of chronotype (measured by MEQ) on the relationship between personality traits and snoozing behavior, we conducted a Baron and Kenny [38] mediation analysis.

Given the nature of our data set, which included repeated sleep measurements for each participant, we used mixed effects linear models [39] to analyze how sleep patterns and their regularity evolve over time. The models included TST, MS, and the variability of TST and MS as dependent variables. For models with variability of TST and MS as dependent variables, the numerical independent variables were averaged across weekdays. We adopted a sequential modeling strategy, building 3 distinct models for each dependent variable. Model 1 included basic characteristics such as chronotype, age, gender, origin, occupation, and parenting cohabitation status (number of children in the household). Model 2 extended model 1 by adjusting for external factors such as the stringency of restrictions and day length. Finally, model 3 built on model 2 by incorporating PA metrics, including step count, midstep, and IV. This approach allows for the exploration of the unique contributions of each new set of variables beyond those accounted for in the previous model. All models included hierarchical random effects for the study participants to account for repeated measurements. The models are formulated as follows:

Model 1: Yij = β0 + β1xij1 + β2xij2 +···+ β2xij7 + β8xij8 + uj + ϵij

Model 2: Yij = β0 + β1xij1 + β2xij2 +···+ β9xij9 + β10xij10 + uj + ϵij

Model 3: Yij = β0 + β1xij1 + β2xij2 +···+ β11xij11 + β12xij12 + β13xij13 + uj + ϵij

where the independent variables are xij1=age, xij2=gender, xij3=number of children, xij4=origin, xij5=occupation, xij6=MEQ, xij7=snoozer, xij8=free day, xij9=Stringency Index, xij10=day length, xij11=steps(×1000), xij12=midstep, and xij13=step entropy.

95% CIs were reported using bootstrapping. The performance of the model was compared using the likelihood ratio test (LRT) to ensure model parsimony. All statistical analyses were performed using R software (version 3.6.1; R Foundation) [40]. Linear mixed models were tested using the lme4 package [41], and P values for these models were calculated using the lmerTest package [42].

Results

Data Summary

In total, 112 users and 27,350 nights were included in the TST and MS analyses. The models for the variability of TST and MS used the weekday SD of both measures, which included 3682 observations. The average age of participants was 39.5 (SD 9.9) years. Of these 112 participants, 49 were academic staff and 63 were service staff. Figure 1 presents the average values of the 4 sleep metrics—TST, MS, and their corresponding SDs—for each participant included in the analysis. Figure 2 illustrates the sleep patterns over time for 2 participants: 1 with low variability and 1 with high variability in their sleep patterns.

Figure 1 TST, MS, and their SDs of participants included in the analysis. Each dot represents the participant's mean value for the corresponding metrics. MS: midsleep; TST: total sleep time.

Figure 2 Sleep data over time from two participants. Participant 1 (red line) demonstrates shorter, later, and more variable sleep compared to Participant 2 (blue line).

Total Sleep Time

We begin by investigating the factors that influence TST using the 3 linear mixed models described earlier. Table 1 presents the results of these models predicting TST. For improved interpretability, the rate of change in TST is expressed as the estimate of the predictors multiplied by 60 minutes. In the full model (model 3), an increase in age by 1 year was associated with a 1.2-minute decrease in TST (95% CI –1.8 to –0.6; P=.008). Regarding gender, males were found to sleep 20.4 minutes less than females (95% CI –33.0 to –7.8; P<.001). Comparing occupations, service staff were found to sleep 22.2 minutes more than academic staff (95% CI 8.4-36.6; P=.004). A detailed monthly breakdown of the variations in sleep pattern measurements across different occupations is provided in Multimedia Appendix 1. After adjusting for day length and the SI, an additional hour of day length was associated with a 0.60-minute decrease in TST (95% CI –0.72 to –0.36; P<.001). Conversely, a 1-point increase in the SI offset this decrease by 0.18 minutes (95% CI 0.06-0.30; P<.001). In the full model, which included PA, a 1-unit increase in IV was associated with a 15.6-minute decrease in TST (95% CI –17.5 to –13.8; P<.001). Moreover, an additional hour in midstep was associated with a 1.8-minute increase in TST (95% CI 1.2-2.4; P<.001).

Table 1 Estimates of fixed effects from the linear mixed effects model predicting TSTa.

Predictors	Model 1b	Model 2c	Model 3d	

	Estimated	CI	P valuee	Estimated	CI	P valuee	Estimated	CI	P valuee	
Age	–0.02	–0.03 to –0.01	.002f	–0.02	–0.03 to –0.01	.002f	–0.02	–0.03 to –0.01	.008f	
Gender (male)	–0.34	–0.55 to –0.14	<.001g	–0.34	–0.55 to –0.14	<.001g	–0.34	–0.55 to –0.13	<.001 g	
Number of children	0.04	–0.07 to 0.15	.51	0.04	–0.07 to 0.15	.51	0.03	–0.07 to 0.14	.56	
Origin (migrant background)	0.01	–0.27 to 0.27	.97	0.01	–0.27 to 0.27	.97	0.01	–0.24 to 0.24	.93	
Occupation (service)	0.36	0.11 to 0.60	.01h	0.36	0.11 to 0.60	.01h	0.37	0.14 to 0.61	.004f	
MEQ	–0.01	–0.04 to 0.02	.59	–0.01	–0.04 to 0.02	.60	0.30	–0.20 to 0.22	.79	
Snoozer (Yes)	–0.2	–0.44 to 0.05	.11	–0.2	–0.44 to 0.05	.11	–0.18	–0.44 to 0.05	.14	
Free day (Yes)	0.10	0.07 to 0.13	<.001g	0.10	0.07 to 0.13	<.001g	0.08	0.06 to 0.11	<.001g	
Stringency Index	—i	—	—	0.005	0.003 to 0.007	<.001g	0.003	0.001 to 0.005	<.001g	
Day length	—	—	—	–0.01	–0.01 to –0.01	<.001g	–0.01	–0.012 to –0.006	<.001g	
Steps (×1000)	—	—	—	—	—	—	–0.01	–0.01 to 0.01	<.001g	
Midsteps	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.03	0.02 to 0.04	<.001g	
Intradaily variability	—	—	—	—	—	—	–0.26	–0.29 to –0.23	<.001g	
aThe σ2 values for models 1-3 were 1.13, 1.13, and 1.1, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient values for models 1-3 were 0.19, 0.19, and 0.19, respectively. The marginal R2/conditional R2 values for models 1-3 were 0.055/0.234, 0.057/0.235, and 0.069/0.245, respectively. The Akaike information criterion values for models 1-3 were 81,208.16, 81,154.98, and 80,783.26, respectively.

bIncludes demographic and occupational variables.

cIncludes model 1 + restriction and seasonal factors.

dIncludes model 2 + physical activity influences.

eItalicized values denote significance.

fP<.01.

gP<.001.

hP<.05.

iNot available.

The marginal R2 values represent the proportion of variance explained by the fixed effects, while the conditional R2 values indicate the proportion of variance accounted for by both fixed and random effects. The increase in both R2 values suggests that more complex models, particularly model 3, explained a greater proportion of the variance in the dependent variable. The LRT between models 1 and 2 indicated that model 2 was a significantly better fit (χ22=57.17; P<.001). Additionally, the LRT between models 2 and 3 showed that model 3 provided a significantly improved fit (χ23=377.72; P<.001). The performance of the full model (model 3) was further supported by the Akaike information criterion (AIC), which was lowest for model 3 (AIC 80,783.26), indicating that it offered the most optimal fit for the data.

Midsleep

Using the same approach, we developed 3 linear mixed models to assess the associations between the same set of predictors and MS. The results are presented in Table 2. To enhance interpretability, the rate of change in MS is measured as the estimate of the predictors multiplied by 60 minutes. Across all 3 models, chronotype (MEQ) (P<.001) and sleep on a free day (P<.001) consistently emerged as significant factors. In the full model (model 3), a 1-point increase in the MEQ was associated with an 8.4-minute decrease in MS (95% CI –10.8 to –5.4; P<.001). Sleep on a free day occurred 11.4 minutes later (95% CI 9.6-12.6; P<.001) compared with a workday. After adjusting for season and restriction policies, MS was delayed by 0.6 minutes (95% CI 0.6-1.2; P<.001) for each additional hour of day length. A 1-point increase in the SI was associated with a 1.2-minute increase in MS (95% CI 1.2-1.8; P<.001). In the full model, which included PA variables, a 1-unit increase in IV was linked to a 17.4-minute earlier MS (95% CI –19.8 to –15.6; P<.001). Similarly, an increase in step count was associated with a 0.6-minute earlier MS (95% CI –1.2 to 0.0; P=.04).

The LRT between models 1 and 2 indicated that model 2 was a better fit (χ22=443.70; P<.001). Additionally, the LRT between models 2 and 3 showed that model 3 provided a significantly improved fit (χ23=291.63; P<.001). The AIC value for model 3 was also the lowest (AIC 86,315.145), indicating that it provided the best fit for the data.

Table 2 Estimates of fixed effects from the linear mixed effects models predicting MSa.

Predictors	Model 1b	Model 2c	Model 3d	

	Estimated	CI	P valuee	Estimated	CI	P valuee	Estimated	CI	P valuee	
Age	–0.01	–0.02 to 0.01	.38	–0.01	–0.02 to 0.01	.46	–0.006	–0.02 to 0.01	.56	
Gender (male)	0.13	–0.16 to 0.41	.39	0.12	–0.17 to 0.40	.43	0.11	–0.19 to 0.38	.49	
Number of children	–0.1f	–0.33 to –0.02	.02f	–0.18	–0.33 to –0.02	.02f	–0.14	–0.30 to 0.02	.08	
Origin (migrant background)	0.19	–0.18 to 0.55	.32	0.18	–0.20 to 0.53	.34	0.09	–0.29 to 0.02	.63	
Occupation (service)	–0.17	–0.51 to 0.17	.33	–0.18	–0.52 to 0.15	.29	–0.21	–0.55 to 0.14	.23	
MEQ	–0.14	–0.18 to –0.09	<.001g	–0.14	–0.18 to –0.09	<.001g	–0.14	–0.18 to –0.09	<.001g	
Snoozer (Yes)	0.27	–0.06 to 0.61	.09	0.29	–0.04 to 0.63	.08	0.32	–0.05 to 0.66	.08	
Free day (Yes)	0.21	0.18 to 0.24	<.001g	0.21	0.18 to 0.24	<.001g	0.19	0.16 to 0.21	<.001g	
Stringency Index	—h	—	—	0.02	0.02 to 0.03	<.001g	0.02	0.02 to 0.03	<.001g	
Day length	—	—	—	0.00	0.00 to 0.01	.048f	0.01	0.00 to 0.01	.002i	
Steps (×1000)	—	—	—	—	—	—	–0.01	–0.02 to –0.01	<.001g	
Midsteps	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.00	–0.00 to 0.01	.43	
Intradaily variability	—	—	—	—	—	—	–0.29	–0.33 to –0.26	<.001f	
aThe σ2 values for models 1-3 were 1.38, 1.36, and 1.36, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient values for models 1-3 were 0.26, 0.26, and 0.27, respectively. The marginal R2/conditional R2 values for models 1-3 were 0.168/0.389, 0.178/0.400, and 0.179/0.400, respectively. The Akaike information criterion values for models 1-3 were 86,990.188, 86,573.060, and 86,315.145, respectively.

bIncludes demographic and occupational variables.

cIncludes model 1 + restriction and seasonal factors.

dIncludes model 2 + physical activity influences.

eItalicized values denote significance.

fP<.05.

gP<.001.

hNot available.

iP<.01.

Total Sleep Time Variability

Table 3 presents the factors predicting the variability in TST. Across the 3 models, age (P=.01), number of children (P=.03), occupation (P<.001), and snoozing behavior (P=.006) emerged as significant factors. In the final model (model 3), each additional year of age was associated with a 0.01-unit increase in TST variability (95% CI 0.00-0.01; P=.01). Notably, participants with snoozing habits exhibited higher TST variability, increasing by 0.15 units (95% CI 0.05-0.27; P=.006). Each additional child was associated with a 0.06-unit reduction in TST variability (95% CI –0.11 to –0.00; P=.03). Service staff also demonstrated lower TST variability, with a reduction of 0.15 units compared with academic staff (95% CI –0.27 to –0.05; P<.001). When accounting for PA, a decrease of 1 hour in midsteps was correlated with a 0.01-unit increase in TST variability (95% CI –0.02 to –0.00; P=.03), while a 1-unit increase in IV was associated with a 0.16-unit decrease in TST variability (95% CI –0.23 to –0.09; P=.03). The LRT indicated that model 2 did not provide an improvement over the baseline model (χ22=4.78; P=.09). However, model 3 demonstrated better performance compared with the baseline model (χ25=31.95; P<.001).

Table 3 Estimates of fixed effects from the linear mixed effects model predicting TST variabilitya.

Predictors	Model 1b	Model 2c	Model 3d	

	Estimated	CI	P valuee	Estimated	CI	P valuee	Estimated	CI	P valuee	
	
Age	0.01	0.00 to 0.01	.01f	0.01	0.00 to 0.01	.01f	0.01	0.00 to 0.01	.01f	
	
Gender (male)	0.11	0.01 to 0.21	.038g	0.11	0.01 to 0.21	.03g	0.10	0.00 to 0.21	.06	
	
Number of children	–0.05	–0.11 to 0.00	.056	–0.05	–0.11 to 0.00	.052	–0.06	–0.11 to –0.00	.01g	
	
Origin (migrant background)	–0.03	–0.15 to 0.10	.56	–0.03	–0.15 to 0.09	.54	–0.03	–0.15 to 0.08	.56	
	
Occupation (service)	–0.17	–0.28 to –0.05	.004g	–0.17	–0.28 to –0.05	.004g	–0.15	–0.27 to –0.05	<.001h	
	
MEQ	0	–0.01 to 0.02	.55	0	–0.01 to 0.02	.57	0	–0.01 to 0.02	.60	
	
Snoozer (yes)	0.18	0.07 to 0.30	.002 g	0.18	0.07 to 0.30	.002f	0.15	0.05 to 0.27	.006f	
	
Daylength	—i	—	—	0	–0.00 to 0.01	.16	0	–0.00 to 0.01	.08	
	
Stringency Index	—	—	—	0	–0.00 to 0.00	.10	0	–0.00 to 0.01	.17	
	
Steps (×1000)	—	—	—	—	—	—	–0.01	–0.01 to 0.00	.007g	
	
Midsteps	—	—	—	—	—	—	–0.01	–0.02 to –0.00	.02f	
	
Intradaily variability	—	—	—	—	—	—	–0.16	–0.23 to –0.09	.001h	
	
aThe σ2 values for models 1-3 were 0.24, 0.24, and 0.24, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient values for models 1-3 were 0.14, 0.14, and 0.14, respectively. The marginal R2/conditional R2 values for models 1-3 were 0.059/0.195, 0.060/0.194, and 0.068/0.200, respectively. The Akaike information criterion values for models 1-3 were 5458.745, 5457.957, and 5436.793, respectively.

bIncludes demographic and occupational variables.

cIncludes model 1 + restriction and seasonal factors.

dIncludes model 2 + physical activity influences.

fP<.05.

gP<.01.

hP<.001.

iNot available.

eItalicized values denote significance.

Midsleep Variability

Table 4 presents the factors predicting the variability of MS. Across the 3 models, the number of children (P=.004), snoozing behavior (P=.01), midsteps (P=.008), and IV (P=.001) emerged as significant factors. For each additional child, MS variability was reduced by 0.10 units (95% CI –0.16 to –0.03; P=.004). In all models, being a snoozer correlated with increased MS variability. Specifically, snoozers experienced a 0.17-unit increase in MS variability compared with nonsnoozers (95% CI 0.03-0.31; P=.01). To better understand the characteristics of snoozers, we conducted an analysis based on Mattingly et al’s study [34]. Interestingly, our results revealed that age (P=.02) and chronotype (P=.002) were significant factors in predicting snoozing behavior. The full results are detailed in Multimedia Appendix 2.

In the full model, including PA variables, midsteps also became significant. Each hour increase in midsteps was associated with a 0.02-unit decrease in MS variability (95% CI –0.04 to –0.00; P=.008). However, the more complex models did not show a significant improvement over the baseline model, as indicated by the LRT (model 2: χ22=1.00; P=.60/model 3: χ25=10.17; P=.07).

Table 4 Estimates of fixed effects from the linear mixed effects model predicting MS variabilitya.

Predictors	Model 1b	Model 2c	Model 3d	

	Estimated	CI	P valuee	Estimated	CI	P valuee	Estimated	CI	P valuee	
	
Age	0.00	–0.00 to 0.01	.41	0.00	–0.00 to 0.01	.41	0.00	–0.00 to 0.01	.55	
	
Gender (male)	0.10	–0.03 to 0.23	.12	0.10	–0.03 to 0.23	.12	0.09	–0.04 to 0.22	.17	
	
Number of children	–0.09	–0.16 to –0.02	.01f	–0.09f	–0.16 to –0.02	.01f	–0.10	–0.16 to –0.03	.004g	
	
Origin (migrant background)	–0.05	–0.19 to 0.11	.49	–0.05	–0.19 to 0.11	.49	–0.05	–0.20 to 0.09	.45	
	
Occupation (service)	–0.12	–0.26 to 0.02	.11	–0.12	–0.25 to 0.02	.11	–0.11	–0.25 to 0.02	.10	
	
MEQ	0.00	–0.02 to 0.02	.96	0.00	–0.02 to 0.02	.98	0.00	–0.02 to 0.02	.94	
	
Snoozer (yes)	0.20	0.06 to 0.35	.006g	0.20	0.06 to 0.35	.006g	0.17	0.03 to 0.31	.01f	
	
Daylength	—h	—	—	0.00	–0.00 to 0.01	.34	0.00	–0.00 to 0.01	.26	
	
Stringency Index	—	—	—	0.00	–0.00 to 0.00	.94	0.00	–0.00 to 0.00	.89	
	
Steps (×1000)	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.00	–0.01 to 0.01	.41	
	
Midsteps	—	—	—	—	—	—	–0.02	–0.03 to –0.00	.008g	
	
Intradaily variability	—	—	—	—	—	—	–0.09	–0.21 to –0.02	09	
	
aThe σ2 values for models 1-3 were 0.59, 0.59, and 0.59, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient values for models 1-3 were 0.09, 0.09, and 0.09, respectively. The marginal R2/conditional R2 values for models 1-3 were 0.034/0.120, 0.034/0.120, and 0.038/0.122, respectively. The Akaike information criterion values for models 1-3 were 8679.371, 8682.369, and 8679.197, respectively.

bIncludes demographic and occupational variables.

cIncludes model 1 + restriction and seasonal factors.

dIncludes model 2 + physical activity influences.

eItalicized values denote significance.

fP<.05.

gP<.01.

hNot available.

Discussion

Principal Findings

In this study, we used a year-long longitudinal data set from 112 working adults and identified several significant relationships between changes in sleep over time and various factors, including restriction policies, seasonal changes, PA, and sociodemographics. We found that more stringent restrictions were associated with increased TST and delayed MS. Additionally, seasonal factors played a notable role: increased day length was linked to reduced TST and delayed MS. Changes in work arrangements, particularly the shift to remote work, directly impacted individuals based on their occupations and sleep patterns. Academic personnel, with more flexible schedules, slept less and exhibited greater variability in TST compared with service personnel, who had more structured work schedules. Additionally, individuals identified as “snoozers” had more flexible sleep schedules with greater variability in both TST and MS compared with nonsnoozers. Moreover, activity patterns played a significant role: exercising later in the day was associated with longer TST and reduced variability in both TST and MS. To contextualize our findings within the broader scope of sleep during the pandemic, the following section details our results and compares them with previous studies.

Demographic Factors

Previous research has highlighted several epidemiological factors affecting sleep patterns, notably, age, gender, and chronotype. Consistent with previous studies, we found that older individuals tend to sleep less [43,44]. However, our findings reveal a correlation between older age and increased TST variability, which contrasts with prior results [45]. The variance in the observed correlations may be due to our study using objective sleep measures, while [45] relied on self-reported data. Additionally, we found no significant association between MS variability and age. Regarding gender differences, our study shows that males tend to have shorter and less consistent TST compared with females. While the shorter TST among males is well-documented [46,47], evidence regarding gender disparity in TST variability is inconsistent. For instance, an actigraphy study on a middle-aged cohort found that females exhibited greater TST variability than males [48]. Conversely, a survey-based study on university students [49] reported no gender differences in TST variability. Additionally, our study observes that parental duties significantly impact sleep patterns. Parents typically exhibited earlier sleep times and more consistent TST and MS than nonparents. The underlying reasons for these observations remain uncertain, but one hypothesis is that parents’ sleep/wake schedules are more stable due to the need to synchronize their sleep patterns with those of their children. While the specific relationship between parenting and sleep pattern variability has not been extensively studied, research on cohabitation suggests that living with others can influence sleep patterns by reducing variability in sleep timing and duration [50,51]. This context highlights how factors related to shared living arrangements, such as parenting, can contribute to greater sleep pattern regularity.

Snoozing Behavior

We observed higher variability in TST and MS among individuals identified as “snoozers.” Interestingly, younger individuals and those with an evening chronotype are more likely to be “snoozers,” suggesting an interplay between age, chronotype, and snoozing habits. The natural sleep-wake patterns associated with an individual’s chronotype may influence their tendency to snooze alarms. Morning types, who wake up earlier, might not feel the need to snooze as much because their schedules align better with societal norms, in contrast to evening types.

Clinically, snoozing can be linked to prolonged sleep inertia, a state of reduced alertness upon waking [52]. Morning types (with high MEQ scores) may be less prone to snoozing and thus avoid significant sleep inertia, potentially leading to better alertness and performance. Conversely, evening types who snooze might experience greater sleep inertia, which could present additional challenges, such as managing increased work demands.

Occupational Factors

We found that academic staff have shorter and more variable TST compared with service staff, and also exhibit greater variability in MS. The flexible and deadline-driven nature of academic schedules may contribute significantly to these irregular sleep patterns. As academics frequently adjust their schedules to meet project deadlines or prepare lectures, the dynamic nature of their workload can disrupt regular sleep patterns. Additionally, the intellectual and creative demands of academic work often extend beyond the traditional 9-5 workday, further contributing to irregular sleep schedules.

Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that increased variability in sleep patterns might impact overall health and well-being. For instance, studies using actigraphy have found that higher TST variability is associated with an increase in depressive symptoms [53,54]. These implications become even more significant in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The shift to remote working and learning may introduce greater flexibility for academic personnel. Although this flexibility allows for more control over schedules, it may also blur the boundaries between work and personal life, potentially leading to longer work hours and more irregular sleep patterns.

Restriction Policies

The influence of lockdown measures during the pandemic on sleep patterns is well documented, with increased TST and later MS observed during lockdown periods [18,21,22]. Our findings further reinforce previous evidence at a more granular scale. In a more detailed analysis using the SI to measure lockdown severity, Ong et al [55] found that a higher SI was correlated with later and more variable MS. Contrary to Ong et al’s findings, our study did not find a correlation between the SI and the variability of MS. However, it is important to note the methodological differences between our studies: while Ong et al [55] conducted their correlation measurements on a monthly basis, our analysis was performed at a weekly level. These differences in granularity may account for the contrasting results.

Although not closely examined in this study, we postulate that the side effects of restriction policies might significantly impact sleep. Prolonged periods of staying at home could induce stress, potentially increasing the prevalence of insomnia [56]. Furthermore, loneliness due to self-isolation could further worsen sleep quality [57]. Despite these adverse effects, restriction policies have also had positive aspects. The shift to remote work persists, as postpandemic workplace policies increasingly encourage hybrid and remote work [58]. This change allows for greater flexibility in daily schedules, potentially leading to improved and longer sleep.

Seasonality

Seasonal factors, such as day length, have been shown to influence sleep patterns, including sleep duration and timing [59,60]. Longer daylight hours during summer may encourage longer waking periods, while shorter days in winter can disrupt melatonin production, potentially leading to extended sleep duration. Additionally, these seasonal shifts align with changes in social schedules, such as holidays, which can further affect regular sleep routines. In southern Finland, where day length can vary by up to 13 hours between summer and winter, these influences might be more pronounced. It is possible that reduced exposure to natural daylight, due to limited mobility during the pandemic, could have altered the effect of day length on sleep.

Physical Activity

The connection between PA and sleep has been extensively studied [61-63]. While regular PA is generally recommended for promoting good sleep, it is crucial to recognize that PA is a multifaceted behavior with various elements—such as duration, timing, and intensity—that can each influence sleep differently [61]. Therefore, investigations into the relationship between sleep and PA should consider these diverse aspects of PA.

When considering the timing of PA and its effect on sleep, our findings indicate that engaging in PA later in the day is associated with longer TST and reduced variability in both TST and MS. This supports previous research, such as a review by Youngstedt et al [63], which suggested that exercising later in the day can be beneficial for sleep. Similarly, a survey study found that engaging in light- to moderate-intensity workouts early in the evening may have beneficial effects on sleep [64]. The impact of PA’s intensity on sleep could potentially modify the effects of its timing. Sleep hygiene guidelines suggest that vigorous exercise late at night may increase arousal and subsequently impair sleep quality [65]. However, recent research challenges this convention. For instance, Myllymäki et al [66] conducted a study under controlled laboratory conditions and found that exercise performed 4 hours before bedtime did not disturb sleep. Furthermore, a review by Stutz et al [67] suggested that evening exercise does not necessarily adversely impact sleep, although exercising less than an hour before bedtime could potentially disrupt sleep.

In addition to the volume and timing of PA, we found that the fragmentation of activity rhythms, measured by IV, significantly predicted sleep patterns. Our finding of a negative association between IV and TST reinforces previous research [68], which suggests that greater fragmentation in daily PA is linked to shorter sleep duration. Additionally, the novel associations between IV and MS, as well as the variability of TST, contribute new insights into the study of activity rhythms and sleep patterns.

By leveraging longitudinal data from fitness trackers, our study highlights the potential of mHealth to offer deeper insights into behavioral health patterns, especially regarding how lifestyle changes during the pandemic have impacted sleep. This integration of mHealth approaches in sleep research exemplifies how technological advancements can enhance our understanding and interventions in public health.

Limitations

This work has several unavoidable limitations. First, the absence of baseline data from the prepandemic period limits our study, preventing a comparison of sleep patterns and quality before and during the later stages of the pandemic. Second, the study was conducted among university staff, leading to a nonrepresentative sample that may introduce bias and result in a limited sample size. The relatively small sample size may have contributed to the wide CIs observed, indicating that the precision of our estimates could be improved. Consequently, our findings should be interpreted with caution, especially when generalizing to a broader population. Third, although we attempted to control for all known factors affecting sleep, there may still be unaddressed confounding variables. Fourth, we used consumer-grade wearables for data collection, which, despite their accessibility, may not provide the same accuracy and reliability as professional-grade equipment. Fifth, recall bias in self-reported measures is an inherent challenge. However, we addressed this issue by using validated questionnaires and conducting monthly data collection to minimize recall intervals. Finally, the study’s geographical limitation restricts the generalizability of our findings to other cultural or social contexts.

Future Directions

One possible future research direction is to further investigate the relationship between snoozing behavior and specific demographics, such as age, to identify potential causative factors. For example, a case-control study could be conducted to compare individuals who frequently snooze with those who rarely or never do, across various age groups. This approach would enable a detailed examination of how snoozing behavior varies with age, while controlling for potential confounding variables.

Conclusions

Our study, through a holistic approach, provided insights into the changes in sleep patterns and PA levels among working adults during the late stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. The flexible working hours during the pandemic led to corresponding flexibility in sleep patterns in certain occupations and sleep traits, particularly among individuals who self-identified as snoozers. Our findings underscore the significant impact of lifestyle habits on sleep health, particularly during unprecedented times like a global pandemic. Moving forward, it is essential to further investigate changes in sleep patterns across diverse populations. Such research will help inform workplace policies in the postpandemic era, considering the potential benefits and challenges of remote work. One notable advantage to consider is the increased amount of sleep that workers may experience, potentially enhancing overall efficiency and productivity. As we navigate the future of work, understanding the interplay between work arrangements, lifestyle choices, and sleep quality will be essential for promoting optimal well-being and performance in the workforce.

TA acknowledges the support of the MAGICS infrastructure for running the cor:ona study. We acknowledge the computational resources provided by the Aalto Science-IT project.

Multimedia Appendix 1 Additional analyses.

Multimedia Appendix 2 Supplementary Tables S1 and S2.

Abbreviations

AIC Akaike information criterion

IV intradaily variability

LRT likelihood ratio test

MEQ Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire

MS midsleep

PA physical activity

PANAS-SF short form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule

PHQ-2 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire

PSG polysomnography

PSQI Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index

SI Stringency Index

TST total sleep time

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.
==== Refs
1 Surridge-David M MacLean A Coulter ME Knowles JB Mood change following an acute delay of sleep Psychiatry Res 1987 10 22 2 149 58 10.1016/0165-1781(87)90102-8 3685222 0165-1781(87)90102-8 3685222
2 Benca RM Okawa M Uchiyama M Ozaki S Nakajima T Shibui K Obermeyer WH Sleep and mood disorders Sleep Med Rev 1997 11 1 1 45 56 10.1016/s1087-0792(97)90005-8 15310523 S1087079297900058 15310523
3 Benham G Sleep: an important factor in stress‐health models Stress and Health 2010 08 05 26 3 204 214 10.1002/smi.1304
4 Hafner M Stepanek M Taylor J Troxel W van SC Why sleep matters? The economic costs of insufficient sleep Rand Health Q 2017 6 4 11 10.7249/rb9962
5 Baldwin DeWitt C Daugherty Steven R Sleep deprivation and fatigue in residency training: results of a national survey of first- and second-year residents Sleep 2004 03 15 27 2 217 23 10.1093/sleep/27.2.217 15124713 15124713
6 Wright K McHill A Birks B Griffin B Rusterholz T Chinoy E Entrainment of the human circadian clock to the natural light-dark cycle Current Biology 2013 08 19 23 16 1554 1558 10.1016/j.cub.2013.06.039 23910656 S0960-9822(13)00764-1 23910656
7 Kredlow MA Capozzoli MC Hearon BA Calkins AW Otto MW The effects of physical activity on sleep: a meta-analytic review J Behav Med 2015 06 38 3 427 49 10.1007/s10865-015-9617-6 25596964 25596964
8 Kamstra MJ Kramer LA Levi MD Losing sleep at the market: the daylight saving anomaly American Economic Review 2000 09 01 90 4 1005 1011 10.1257/aer.90.4.1005
9 Akerstedt T Hume K Minors D Waterhouse J The subjective meaning of good sleep, an intraindividual approach using the Karolinska Sleep Diary Percept Mot Skills 1994 08 04 79 1 Pt 1 287 96 10.2466/pms.1994.79.1.287 7991323 7991323
10 Buysse DJ Reynolds CF Monk TH Berman SR Kupfer DJ The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: a new instrument for psychiatric practice and research Psychiatry Res 1989 05 28 2 193 213 10.1016/0165-1781(89)90047-4 2748771 0165-1781(89)90047-4 2748771
11 Aledavood T Lehmann S Saramäki J Social network differences of chronotypes identified from mobile phone data EPJ Data Sci 2018 10 24 7 1 46 46 10.1140/epjds/s13688-018-0174-4
12 Aledavood T Kivimäki Ilkka Lehmann S Saramäki Jari Quantifying daily rhythms with non-negative matrix factorization applied to mobile phone data Sci Rep 2022 04 01 12 1 5544 10.1038/s41598-022-09273-y 10.1038/s41598-022-09273-y 35365710 10.1038/s41598-022-09273-y 35365710
13 Breideband T Martinez GJ Talkad Sukumar P Caruso M D'Mello S Striegel AD Mark G Sleep patterns and sleep alignment in remote teams during COVID-19 Proc ACM Hum-Comput Interact 2022 11 11 6 CSCW2 1 31 10.1145/3555217 37360538
14 Grossi NR Batinic B Moharitsch S Sleep and health: examining the relation of sleep to burnout and well-being using a consumer fitness tracker Health Technol 2021 10 05 11 6 1247 1257 10.1007/s12553-021-00603-0
15 Aledavood T Torous J Triana Hoyos AM Naslund JA Onnela J Keshavan M Smartphone-based tracking of sleep in depression, anxiety, and psychotic disorders Curr Psychiatry Rep 2019 6 4 21 7 49 9 10.1007/s11920-019-1043-y 31161412 10.1007/s11920-019-1043-y 31161412
16 Chinoy Evan D Cuellar Joseph A Huwa Kirbie E Jameson Jason T Watson Catherine H Bessman Sara C Hirsch Dale A Cooper Adam D Drummond Sean P A Markwald Rachel R Performance of seven consumer sleep-tracking devices compared with polysomnography Sleep 2021 05 14 44 5 zsaa291 10.1093/sleep/zsaa291 33378539 6055610 33378539
17 Miller Dean J Sargent Charli Roach Gregory D A validation of six wearable devices for estimating sleep, heart rate and heart rate variability in healthy adults Sensors (Basel) 2022 08 22 22 16 6317 10.3390/s22166317 36016077 s22166317 36016077
18 Sinha M Pande B Sinha R Impact of COVID-19 lockdown on sleep-wake schedule and associated lifestyle related behavior: a national survey J Public Health Res 2020 07 28 9 3 1826 10.4081/jphr.2020.1826 32874967 32874967
19 Lee P Marek J Nálevka Petr Sleep pattern in the US and 16 European countries during the COVID-19 outbreak using crowdsourced smartphone data Eur J Public Health 2021 02 01 31 1 23 30 10.1093/eurpub/ckaa208 33169169 5968992 33169169
20 Capodilupo ER Miller DJ Changes in health promoting behavior during COVID-19 physical distancing: utilizing wearable technology to examine trends in sleep, activity, and cardiovascular indicators of health PLoS One 2021 8 12 16 8 e0256063 10.1371/journal.pone.0256063 34383837 PONE-D-20-16772 34383837
21 Rezaei N Grandner MA Changes in sleep duration, timing, and variability during the COVID-19 pandemic: large-scale Fitbit data from 6 major US cities Sleep Health 2021 06 7 3 303 313 10.1016/j.sleh.2021.02.008 33771534 S2352-7218(21)00029-2 33771534
22 Cellini N Canale N Mioni G Costa S Changes in sleep pattern, sense of time and digital media use during COVID-19 lockdown in Italy J Sleep Res 2020 08 29 4 e13074 10.1111/jsr.13074 32410272 32410272
23 Diniz T Christofaro D Tebar W Cucato Gabriel G Botero João Paulo Correia Marilia Almeida Ritti-Dias Raphael M Lofrano-Prado Mara C Prado Wagner L Reduction of physical activity levels during the COVID-19 pandemic might negatively disturb sleep pattern Front Psychol 2020 11 586157 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.586157 33424702 33424702
24 Escobar-Córdoba Franklin Ramírez-Ortiz Jairo Fontecha-Hernández Jeisson Effects of social isolation on sleep during the COVID-19 pandemic Sleep Sci 2021 11 30 14 Spec 1 86 93 10.5935/1984-0063.20200097 34917279 34917279
25 Hulsegge G Loef B van Kerkhof LW Roenneberg T van der Beek AJ Proper KI Shift work, sleep disturbances and social jetlag in healthcare workers J Sleep Res 2019 08 05 28 4 e12802 10.1111/jsr.12802 30520209 30520209
26 Ganesan S Magee M Stone JE Mulhall MD Collins A Howard ME Lockley SW Rajaratnam SMW Sletten TL The impact of shift work on sleep, alertness and performance in healthcare workers Sci Rep 2019 03 15 9 1 4635 10.1038/s41598-019-40914-x 10.1038/s41598-019-40914-x 30874565 10.1038/s41598-019-40914-x 30874565
27 Luong N Barnett I Aledavood T The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on daily rhythms J Am Med Inform Assoc 2023 11 17 30 12 1943 1953 10.1093/jamia/ocad140 37550242 7238442 37550242
28 Ikäheimonen A Triana AM Luong N Ziaei A Rantaharju J Darst R Aledavood T Niimpy: a toolbox for behavioral data analysis SoftwareX 2023 07 23 101472 10.1016/j.softx.2023.101472
29 Witting W Kwa I Eikelenboom P Mirmiran M Swaab D Alterations in the circadian rest-activity rhythm in aging and Alzheimer's disease Biol Psychiatry 1990 03 15 27 6 563 72 10.1016/0006-3223(90)90523-5 2322616 0006-3223(90)90523-5 2322616
30 Premium Weather API World Weather Online 2024-05-15 https://www.worldweatheronline.com/weather-api/api/
31 Friborg O Bjorvatn B Amponsah B Pallesen S Associations between seasonal variations in day length (photoperiod), sleep timing, sleep quality and mood: a comparison between Ghana (5°) and Norway (69°) Journal of Sleep Research 2011 11 10 21 2 176 184 10.1111/j.1365-2869.2011.00982.x 22074234 22074234
32 Hale T Angrist N Goldszmidt R Kira B Petherick A Phillips T Webster S Cameron-Blake E Hallas L Majumdar S Tatlow H A global panel database of pandemic policies (Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker) Nat Hum Behav 2021 04 08 5 4 529 538 10.1038/s41562-021-01079-8 33686204 10.1038/s41562-021-01079-8 33686204
33 Adan A Almirall H Personal Individ Differ 1991 12 3 241 253 10.1016/0191-8869(91)90110-w
34 Mattingly Stephen M Martinez Gonzalo Young Jessica Cain Meghan K Striegel Aaron Snoozing: an examination of a common method of waking Sleep 2022 10 10 45 10 zsac184 10.1093/sleep/zsac184 35951011 6661272 35951011
35 Kroenke K Spitzer RL Williams JBW The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: validity of a two-item depression screener Med Care 2003 11 41 11 1284 92 10.1097/01.MLR.0000093487.78664.3C 14583691 14583691
36 Thompson ER Development and validation of an internationally reliable Short-Form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 2016 07 26 38 2 227 242 10.1177/0022022106297301
37 Roenneberg T Allebrandt KV Merrow M Vetter C Social jetlag and obesity Curr Biol 2012 05 22 22 10 939 43 10.1016/j.cub.2012.03.038 22578422 S0960-9822(12)00325-9 22578422
38 Baron RM Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations J Pers Soc Psychol 1986 12 51 6 1173 82 10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173 3806354 3806354
39 Raudenbush S Bryk AS Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods 2002 Thousand Oaks, CA Sage Publications
40 R: a language and environment for statistical computing R Project/R Foundation 2024-05-15 http://www.r-project.org/
41 Bates D Mächler M Bolker B Walker S Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using J. Stat. Soft 2015 67 1 1 48 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
42 Kuznetsova A Brockhoff PB Christensen RHB Package: tests in linear mixed effects models J Stat Soft 2017 82 13 1 26 10.18637/jss.v082.i13
43 Ohayon Maurice M Carskadon Mary A Guilleminault Christian Vitiello Michael V Meta-analysis of quantitative sleep parameters from childhood to old age in healthy individuals: developing normative sleep values across the human lifespan Sleep 2004 11 01 27 7 1255 73 10.1093/sleep/27.7.1255 15586779 15586779
44 Jonasdottir Sigga Svala Minor Kelton Lehmann Sune Gender differences in nighttime sleep patterns and variability across the adult lifespan: a global-scale wearables study Sleep 2021 02 12 44 2 zsaa169 10.1093/sleep/zsaa169 32886772 5901589 32886772
45 Dillon HR Lichstein KL Dautovich ND Taylor DJ Riedel BW Bush AJ Variability in self-reported normal sleep across the adult age span J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2015 01 13 70 1 46 56 10.1093/geronb/gbu035 24829303 geronb/gbu035 24829303
46 Ong JL Tandi J Patanaik A Lo JC Chee MWL Large-scale data from wearables reveal regional disparities in sleep patterns that persist across age and sex Sci Rep 2019 03 04 9 1 3415 10.1038/s41598-019-40156-x 10.1038/s41598-019-40156-x 30833649 10.1038/s41598-019-40156-x 30833649
47 Tonetti L Fabbri M Natale V Sex difference in sleep‐time preference and sleep need: a cross‐sectional survey among Italian pre‐adolescents, adolescents, and adults Chronobiology International 2009 07 07 25 5 745 759 10.1080/07420520802394191 18780201 902323549
48 Mezick EJ Matthews KA Hall M Kamarck TW Buysse DJ Owens JF Reis SE Intra-individual variability in sleep duration and fragmentation: associations with stress Psychoneuroendocrinology 2009 10 34 9 1346 54 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2009.04.005 19450933 S0306-4530(09)00121-8 19450933
49 Roane BM Seifer R Sharkey KM Van Reen E Bond TLY Raffray T Carskadon MA What role does sleep play in weight gain in the first semester of university? Behav Sleep Med 2015 08 12 13 6 491 505 10.1080/15402002.2014.940109 25115969 25115969
50 Minors D Atkinson G Bent N Rabbitt P Waterhouse J The effects of age upon some aspects of lifestyle and implications for studies on circadian rhythmicity Age Ageing 1998 01 27 1 67 72 10.1093/ageing/27.1.67 9504369 9504369
51 Bliwise DL Ansari FP Straight L Parker KP Age changes in timing and 24-hour distribution of self-reported sleep The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 2005 12 13 12 1077 1082 10.1097/00019442-200512000-00007 16319300
52 Ogawa K Kaizuma-Ueyama E Hayashi M Effects of using a snooze alarm on sleep inertia after morning awakening J Physiol Anthropol 2022 12 31 41 1 43 10.1186/s40101-022-00317-w 36587230 10.1186/s40101-022-00317-w 36587230
53 Michael Vanderlind W Beevers CG Sherman SM Trujillo LT McGeary JE Matthews MD Todd Maddox W Schnyer DM Sleep and sadness: exploring the relation among sleep, cognitive control, and depressive symptoms in young adults Sleep Medicine 2014 01 15 1 144 149 10.1016/j.sleep.2013.10.006 24332565
54 Lemola S Ledermann T Friedman EM Variability of sleep duration is related to subjective sleep quality and subjective well-being: an actigraphy study PLoS One 2013 8 14 8 8 e71292 10.1371/journal.pone.0071292 23967186 PONE-D-12-32105 23967186
55 Ong JL Lau T Karsikas M Kinnunen H Chee MWL A longitudinal analysis of COVID-19 lockdown stringency on sleep and resting heart rate measures across 20 countries Sci Rep 2021 07 13 11 1 14413 10.1038/s41598-021-93924-z 10.1038/s41598-021-93924-z 34257380 10.1038/s41598-021-93924-z 34257380
56 Lin S Lan Y Hsia P Kao CM Tsou H Lin Y Internet searches for "insomnia" and "suicide" mediated by stay-at-home behaviors in 45 countries during the first 12 months of the COVID-19 pandemic J Affect Disord 2023 03 15 325 119 126 10.1016/j.jad.2022.12.139 36621674 S0165-0327(22)01502-6 36621674
57 Benson Jade A McSorley V Eloesa Hawkley Louise C Lauderdale Diane S Associations of loneliness and social isolation with actigraph and self-reported sleep quality in a national sample of older adults Sleep 2021 01 21 44 1 zsaa140 10.1093/sleep/zsaa140 32691067 5874180 32691067
58 Peters SE Dennerlein JT Wagner GR Sorensen G Work and worker health in the post-pandemic world: a public health perspective The Lancet Public Health 2022 02 7 2 e188 e194 10.1016/s2468-2667(21)00259-0 35122760
59 Lehnkering H Siegmund R Influence of chronotype, season, and sex of subject on sleep behavior of young adults Chronobiol Int 2007 07 07 24 5 875 88 10.1080/07420520701648259 17994343 783646712 17994343
60 Mattingly SM Grover T Martinez GJ Aledavood T Robles-Granda P Nies K Striegel A Mark G The effects of seasons and weather on sleep patterns measured through longitudinal multimodal sensing npj Digit. Med 2021 04 28 4 1 76 10.1038/s41746-021-00435-2 33911176
61 Irish LA Kline CE Gunn HE Buysse DJ Hall MH The role of sleep hygiene in promoting public health: a review of empirical evidence Sleep Med Rev 2015 08 22 23 36 10.1016/j.smrv.2014.10.001 25454674 S1087-0792(14)00100-2 25454674
62 Kubitz KA Landers DM Petruzzello SJ Han M The effects of acute and chronic exercise on sleep. A meta-analytic review Sports Med 1996 04 21 4 277 91 10.2165/00007256-199621040-00004 8726346 8726346
63 Youngstedt S D O'Connor P J Dishman R K The effects of acute exercise on sleep: a quantitative synthesis Sleep 1997 03 20 3 203 14 10.1093/sleep/20.3.203 9178916 9178916
64 Vuori I Urponen H Hasan J Partinen M Epidemiology of exercise effects on sleep Acta Physiol Scand Suppl 1988 574 3 7 3245463 3245463
65 American Academy of Sleep Medicine The international classification of sleep disorders: diagnostic and coding manual Ann Intern Med 1991 09 01 115 5 413 413 10.7326/0003-4819-115-5-413_1
66 Myllymäki Tero Kyröläinen Heikki Savolainen K Hokka L Jakonen R Juuti T Martinmäki Kaisu Kaartinen J Kinnunen M Rusko H Effects of vigorous late-night exercise on sleep quality and cardiac autonomic activity J Sleep Res 2011 03 20 1 Pt 2 146 53 10.1111/j.1365-2869.2010.00874.x 20673290 JSR874 20673290
67 Stutz J Eiholzer R Spengler CM Effects of evening exercise on sleep in healthy participants: a systematic review and meta-analysis Sports Med 2019 02 29 49 2 269 287 10.1007/s40279-018-1015-0 30374942 10.1007/s40279-018-1015-0 30374942
68 Luik AI Zuurbier LA Hofman A Van Someren EJW Tiemeier H Stability and fragmentation of the activity rhythm across the sleep-wake cycle: the importance of age, lifestyle, and mental health Chronobiology International 2013 08 23 30 10 1223 1230 10.3109/07420528.2013.813528 23971909 23971909
