Study ObjectivesThe majority of adolescent sleep research has utilized self-reported sleep duration and some have based information on a solitary question. Whilst some have claimed to have validated sleep survey data with objective actigraphy measures in adolescents, the statistical approach applied only demonstrates the strength of the association between subjective and objective sleep duration data and does not reflect if these different methods actually agree.MethodsData were collected as part of the Midlands Adolescents Schools Sleep Education Study (MASSES). Adolescents (n=225) aged 11-13 years provided estimates for weekday, weekend and combined sleep duration based on self-reported survey data, a 7-day sleep diary, and wrist-worn actigraphy.ResultsWe assessed the strength of the relationship as well as agreement levels between subjective and objectively determined sleep duration (weekday, weekend and combined). Subjective diary sleep duration was significantly correlated with actigraphy estimates for weekday and weekend sleep duration r=0.30, p≤0.001 and r=0.31, p≤0.001 respectively. Pitman’s test demonstrated no significant difference in the variance between weekend sleep duration (r=0.09, p=0.16) and combined sleep duration (r=0.12, p=0.08) indicating acceptable agreement between actigraphy and sleep diary sleep duration only. Self-reported sleep duration estimates (weekday, weekend and combined) did not agree with actigraphy determined sleep duration.ConclusionsSleep diaries are a cost-effective alternative to survey/questionnaire data. Self-reported measures of sleep duration in adolescents do not agree with actigraphy measures and should be avoided where possible. Previous adolescent sleep studies that have utilized self-reported survey data may not provide a complete representation of sleep on the outcome measure of interest.

PS techniques, when learned and delivered by CCs as a tool to coach carers in their day-to-day caregiving, improves carers' caregiving competence, coping, burden, and perceived stress. This may reduce dependence on primary, psychiatric, and institutional care. Results provide evidence that establishing effective partnerships between inter-professional clinicians in academic clinical health science centers, and community agencies can extend the reach of the expertise of specialized health care institutions.

clinical guidance to standardize outcome measurements and improve data quality. In the present study, we compared paperbased administrations against administration with Virgil to determine the extent to which the use of electronic assessments (eCOA) minimized scoring errors in primary and co-primary endpoints of AD trials. Methods:Paper-based assessments from a recent clinical trial of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) were compared against eCOA administrations of the same scales in separate MCI trials. All studies are phase II/III multinational trials. Score discrepancies in CDR, ADAS-Cog, ADCS-ADL-MCI, and MMSE were identified via review of audio recordings and worksheets by the same cohort of expert calibrated reviewers. For each scale, discrepancies were compared between paper-based and Virgil administrations. Results: Percentages of reviews with at least one scoring discrepancy, as well as two or more discrepancies, were significantly and substantially lower in Virgil administrations compared to paper-based for all scales. Conclusions: Paper-based administrations create unnecessary variability around endpoint measurements, which can contribute to inconclusive results. The Virgil eCOA platform with real-time clinical guidance, auto-calculation of scores, and prompts for missing data and out-of-range errors can help standardize scale administration and scoring, thereby substantially reducing error variance and improving signal detection.SATURDAY,