MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W198364400

Health Issues and Service Utilization of University Students: Experiences, Practices & Perceptions of Students, Staff and Faculty.

2007· article· en· W198364400 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paula C. Fletcher, Pamela J. Bryden, Margaret A. Schneider, Kimberly A. Dawson, Adrianne Vandermeer

Notice bibliographique

RevueCollege student journal · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueHealth and Well-being Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychologyMedical educationAffect (linguistics)AnxietyExploratory researchPerceptionHigher educationMedicinePsychiatry
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Limited evidence exists concerning the health of young adults, most likely attributable to the fact that young adults perceive themselves to be insusceptible to infirmity. This lack of information extends into higher education sectors, places that have venues for dispensing health information/education to many young adults. What is important to note is that some research indicates that health problems may influence student attrition, particularly first year students; however, information concerning their health problems is inadequate. As such, the overall goal of this exploratory research was to complete a thorough needs assessment of the issues affecting student health from the perspective of the student and faculty and staff that routinely assist students concerning health issues. Specifically, the purpose was to examine health issues and issues that have the potential to affect the health and academics of 1st year students. Additionally the practices, experiences and perceptions concerning university services and service referrals received by first year students, and suggested by staff/faculty that deal with these students was also examined. Students (n=412) reported a wide range of issues that have the potential to affect health, quality of life and academics, namely concerns about studying/exam writing, relationships, time management, finances, self-esteem, obesity, and grief, to name a few. Staff and faculty (n=23) reported dealing with students with a wider range of issues, such as anxiety, anger, depression, mood disorders and sleep disorders. Although students appeared quite knowledgeable about the health services offered on campus, awareness did not translate into use. University personnel should become more actively involved in promoting on-campus services to first year students and advocating the potential implications that well-being may have in successfully completing university. INTRODUCTION The evidence concerning the determinants of population health continues to grow. Early work completed by Lalonde (1981) indicated that there existed three key factors determining health status: environment, genetics and lifestyle. Although this provided a basic framework from which to study health determinants, much has subsequently been learned about health. Today Health Canada (2002) contends that the key factors which are integral in population health include: individual behaviour and coping skills, heredity (biology and genetic endowment), socio-economic status (education, income, social status), social support networks, employment/working conditions, environmental influences (social and physical), access to health care, gender and culture. Healthy lifestyles are a worthy investment, not only for the quality of life of individuals, but also for the country. Illness is costly (Lyons & Langille, 2000) and takes considerable resources (i.e., family, county) to cope with and to enhance compromised well-being. With population aging, increasing life expectancy and the increasing prevalence of chronic conditions and physiological limitations, the burden of illness will intensify if intervention is not mandated. Health research has relatively neglected the young adult population (18 to 22 years of age), most likely attributable to the fact that young adults typically perceive themselves to be insusceptible to infirmity and usually experience optimal levels of health (see, for example, Boehm, Selves, Raleigh, Ronis, Butler, Jacobs, 1993; Hovell, Mewborn, Randle, Fowler-Johnson, 1985; Lipnickey, 1986). Patrick (1995) raises the following issues that have failed to be addressed: But what about college students? Who is responsible for their health? Who has the authority to speak for them? Who is to be held accountable for their preventable illness or death? Is it parents, students, employers of college students, local public health officials, college administrators and trustees, or some combination of these? …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,012
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,023

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,001
Communication savante0,0030,001
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,054
Tête enseignante GPT0,458
Écart entre enseignants0,404 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations33
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCollege student journalMême sujetHealth and Well-being StudiesTravaux en français237 207