Self-rated health among Greenlandic Inuit and Norwegian Sami adolescents: associated risk and protective correlates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Self-rated health (SRH) and associated risk and protective correlates were investigated among two indigenous adolescent populations, Greenlandic Inuit and Norwegian Sami. DESIGN: Cross-sectional data were collected from "Well-being among Youth in Greenland" (WBYG) and "The Norwegian Arctic Adolescent Health Study" (NAAHS), conducted during 2003-2005 and comprising 10th and 11th graders, 378 Inuit and 350 Sami. METHODS: SRH was assessed by one single item, using a 4-point and 5-point scale for NAAHS and WBYG, respectively. Logistic regressions were performed separately for each indigenous group using a dichotomous measure with "very good" (NAAHS) and "very good/good" (WBYG) as reference categories. We simultaneously controlled for various socio-demographics, risk correlates (drinking, smoking, violence and suicidal behaviour) and protective correlates (physical activity, well-being in school, number of close friends and adolescent-parent relationship). RESULTS: A majority of both Inuit (62%) and Sami (89%) youth reported "good" or "very good" SRH. The proportion of "poor/fair/not so good" SRH was three times higher among Inuit than Sami (38% vs. 11%, p≤0.001). Significantly more Inuit females than males reported "poor/fair" SRH (44% vs. 29%, p≤0.05), while no gender differences occurred among Sami (12% vs. 9%, p≤0.08). In both indigenous groups, suicidal thoughts (risk) and physical activity (protective) were associated with poor and good SRH, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In accordance with other studies of indigenous adolescents, suicidal thoughts were strongly associated with poorer SRH among Sami and Inuit. The Inuit-Sami differences in SRH could partly be due to higher "risk" and lower "protective" correlates among Inuit than Sami. The positive impact of physical activity on SRH needs to be targeted in future intervention programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".