Health-Promoting Behaviors and Their Association With Certain Demographic Characteristics of Nursing Students of Tehran City in 2013
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES: Nursing students provide health services and their behavior may affect the clinical services that they provide to clients. In addition, Health-promoting behaviors among nursing students may affect the quality of patient education. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the relationship between health-promoting behaviors and certain demographic characteristics of nursing students in Tehran. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was performed on 404 undergraduate nursing students (107 males and 297 females) of universities of Tehran who were selected through stratified random sampling procedure. The data collection tools were: demographic characteristics questionnaire and health-promoting lifestyle profile 2. This standard instrument has 6 subscales of nutrition, physical activity, spiritual growth, health responsibility, interpersonal relations, and stress management. In order to keep the weight of the expressions of the tool and subscale scores the mean were calculated. For this purpose, each expression was scored on a scale of 1 to 4. Internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha) of this tool was a=0.86. Data was analyzed by using statistical tests of Chi Square, Independent T and ANOVA. RESULTS: According to the results, health-promoting behaviors among the students scored highly. The analysis of subscales of health-promoting lifestyle profile 2 showed that the highest mean belongs to the subscale of spiritual growth and the lowest mean belongs to the subscale of physical activity. The mean of health-promoting behaviors among married students was higher than among single students. Moreover, as students advanced through academic years, health responsibility increased and stress management reduced. DISCUSSION: Undoubtedly, physical activity and stress management have a significant role in personal health and occupational satisfaction of students, which consequently help them provide better services to clients. Therefore, considering the low scores of students in these sections, nursing education managers, policymakers and planners should pay attention to these problems.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".