Discordance between Lifestyle-Related Health Practices and Beliefs of People Living in Kuwait: A Community-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the concordance between lifestyle practices and beliefs of people living in Kuwait, and between their lifestyle practices and established evidence-informed recommendations for health. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional interview questionnaire study was conducted using a convenience sample of 100 adults living in Kuwait (age range 19-75 years). The interview included sections on demographics, and lifestyle-related practices and beliefs related to smoking, diet/nutrition, physical activity/exercise, sleep, and stress. Diet/nutrition and physical activity/exercise benchmarks were based on international standards. Analyses included descriptive statistics and the χ2 test. RESULTS: Beliefs about the importance of nutrition in lifestyle-related conditions were limited, and this was apparent in participants' dietary habits, e.g., low consumption of fruit/vegetables and multigrains: 16 (16%) and 9 (9%) met the recommended guidelines, respectively. Ninety-nine (99%) believed physical activity/exercise affects health overall, and 44 (44%) exercised regularly. Of the sample of 100, 20 (20%) exercised in accordance with evidence-based recommendations for maximal health. Compared with beliefs about other lifestyle-related behaviors/attributes, respondents believed nutrition contributed more than stress to heart disease, cancer, and stroke, and stress contributed more than nutrition to hypertension and diabetes. CONCLUSION: In this study, our findings showed a discrepancy between lifestyle-related practices and beliefs, and between each of these and evidence-based recommendations for maximal health, i.e., not smoking, several servings of fruit and vegetables and whole-grain foods daily, healthy weight, restorative sleep, and low-to-moderate stress levels.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".