Machado RA, Broche PY, Montenegro ON, de la Torre SME, Tirado SD, Machado TC

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 284-289
PDF size: 172.82 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Foundation: Chronotype is an attribute of human beings, which reflects its individual circadian phase, and affects biological and psychological functions, both in health and disease. Its study is particularly valuable in educational settings.
Objective: to characterize the chronotype of university students in relation to the type of career they study.
Methods: a cross-sectional analytical study was conducted in a series of 273 university students, selected by simple random sampling, structured in three groups based on provenance criteria: 88 from Technical Sciences, 88 from Social and Humanistic Sciences and 97 from Medical Sciences. The chronotype of each subject was explored through the Morningness and Eveningness Questionnaire. For each group the mean scores of the questionnaire and the proportions of morning, intermediate and evening individuals were calculated.
Results: the mean scores of the three groups were framed in the intermediate chronotype range, and there were no statistically significant differences. Subjects were classified as 67% of as intermediate, 23.8% as morning and 9.2 % as evening; chronotype proportions by groups also showed no significant differences.
Conclusion: there was a clear predominance of intermediate chronotype, followed in frequency by morning and evening. It was not demonstrated that the type of career influenced scores, nor in proportions of the circadian typologies by groups.

REFERENCES

1. Madrid JA, de Lama ÁR. Cronobiología básica y clínica. España: Edite@cred; 2006.

2. Dibner C, Schibler U, Albrecht U. The mammalian circadian timing system: organization and coordination of central and peripheral clocks. Annu Rev Physiol. 2010 ; 72: 517-49.

3. Weaver DR, Emery P. Circadian timekeeping. In: Squire LR, Berg D, Bloom FE, du Lac S, Ghosh A, Spitzer NC, editors. Fundamental neuroscience. 4th. ed. Kidlington: Elsevier; 2013.

4. Fabbian F, Zucchi B, De Giorgi A, Tiseo R, Boari B, Salmi R, et al. Chronotype, gender and general health. Chronobiol Int. 2016 ; 33 (7): 863-82.

5. Levandovski R, Sasso E, Hidalgo MP. Chronotype: a review of the advances, limits and applicability of the main instruments used in the literature to assess human phenotype. Trends Psychiatry Psychother. 2013 ; 35 (1): 3-11.

6. Adan A, Archer SN, Hidalgo MP, Di Milia L, Natale V, Randler C. Circadian typology: a comprehensive review. Chronobiol Int. 2012 ; 29 (9): 1153-75.

7. Eisenstein M. Chronobiology: Stepping out of time. Nature. 2013 ; 498 (7450): S10-2.

8. Lipnevich AA, Credè M, Hahn E, Spinath FM, Roberts RD, Preckel F. How distinctive are morningness and eveningness from the Big Five factors of personality?. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2017 ; 112 (3): 491-509.

9. Zerbini G, Merrow M. Time to learn: How chronotype impacts education. Psych J. 2017 ; 6 (4): 263-276.

10. Fischer D, Lombardi DA, Marucci-Wellman H, Roenneberg T. Chronotypes in the US – Influence of age and sex. PLoS One. 2017 Jun 21 ; 12 (6): e0178782.

11. Horne JA, Ostberg O. A self-assessment questionnaire to determine morningness-eveningness in human circadian rhythms. Int J Chronobiol. 1976 ; 4 (2): 97-110.

12. Adan A, Natale V. Gender differences in morningness–eveningness preference. Chronobiol Int. 2002 ; 19 (4): 709-20.

13. Rique GLN, Fernandes Filho GMC, Ferreira ADC, de Sousa-Muñoz RL. Relationship between chronotype and quality of sleep in medical students at the Federal University of Paraiba, Brazil. Sleep Sci. 2014 ; 7 (2): 96-102.

14. Leocadio-Miguel MA, Louzada FM, Duarte LL, Areas RP, Alam M, Freire MV, et al. Latitudinal cline of chronotype. Sci Rep. 2017 ; 7 (1): 5437.

15. Caci H, Deschaux O, Adan A, Natale V. Comparing three morningness scales: age and gender effects, structure and cut-off criteria. Sleep Med. 2009 ; 10 (2): 240-5.

16. Roenneberg T. Having trouble typing? What on earth is chronotype?. J Biol Rhythms. 2015 ; 30 (6): 487-91.