Lifestyle factors, substance use, and frequent recurrent headaches in youth: Data from a Canadian population-based observational study (S41.004)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective: To assess the association between lifestyle factors, substance use, and frequent recurrent headaches in youth. Background: We hypothesized that higher odds of frequent headaches would be associated with several lifestyle factors and frequent substance use in youth. Design/Methods: This was an observational study of youth aged 5–17 using data from a population-based health survey (2019 Canadian Health Survey on Children and Youth). Headache frequency was dichotomized as ‘about once a week or less’ or ‘>once a week’ (defined as frequent recurrent headaches). Logistic regression was used to quantify the association between frequent headaches and meal schedules, prolonged screen exposure (≥21h in past week), physical activity (≥60 minutes/day), chronotype, frequent substance use (alcohol ≥1/week, binge drinking ≥5 times in past month, daily smoking, daily e-cigarettes, daily cannabis), and exposure to daily smoking in the household, unadjusted and adjusted for age and sex. Design effects were addressed using bootstrap replicate weighting. Results: There were 4,978,370 youth (weighted sample size) (mean age=10.9 years, 48.8% females) and 6.1% had frequent headaches. Age and female sex were associated with frequent headaches (OR=1.31, 95%CI=1.28–1.34, and 2.39, 95%CI=2.08–2.75, respectively). In models adjusted for age/sex, the odds of frequent headaches decreased with meal regularity (OR=0.90, 95%CI=0.89–0.92) and increased with later chronotype (OR=1.10, 95%CI=1.05–1.15) and excess screen exposure (OR=2.97, 95%CI=1.53–5.77); there was no significant association with physical activity. In adolescents 12–17 years old, frequent headaches were associated with alcohol use (OR=3.50, 95%CI=2.18–5.62), binge drinking (OR=5.52, 95%CI=2.95–10.32), smoking cigarettes (OR=3.81, 95%CI=1.91–7.62), using e-cigarettes (OR=3.10, 95%CI=2.29–4.20), and cannabis use (OR=3.59, 95%CI=2.0–6.45). Smoking inside the house was associated with higher odds of frequent headaches in youth of all ages (OR=2.00, 95%CI=1.23–3.27). Conclusions: Lifestyle factors (meal irregularity, late chronotype, and prolonged screen exposure) were significantly associated with frequent headaches in a large sample of Canadian youth. Frequent substance use was associated with frequent headaches in adolescents. Disclosure: The institution of Dr. Orr has received research support from Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute. The institution of Dr. Orr has received research support from Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Orr has received publishing royalties from a publication relating to health care. Dr. Orr has a non-compensated relationship as a Associate Editor with Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain that is relevant to AAN interests or activities. Dr. Orr has a non-compensated relationship as a Editorial Board with Neurology that is relevant to AAN interests or activities. Ms. Nilles has received research support from French Gilles de la Tourette Association. Ms. Nilles has received research support from Owerko Centre of Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute. Ms. Nilles has received research support from Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris. Dr. Patten has received personal compensation in the range of $10,000-$49,999 for serving as an Editor, Associate Editor, or Editorial Advisory Board Member for Canadian Psychiatric Association. Dr. Patten has received publishing royalties from a publication relating to health care. Jeanne Williams has nothing to disclose. The institution of Dr. Pringsheim has received research support from Maternal Newborn Child and Youth Strategic Clinical Network. The institution of Dr. Pringsheim has received research support from Owerko Center of Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute. The institution of Dr. Pringsheim has received research support from Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The institution of Dr. Pringsheim has received research support from Public Health Agency of Canada.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».