Prevalence of under Nutrition and Associated Factors among Khat Chewers in Khat Chewing Shops at Gulalle Sub City, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is studies limitation regarding the effect of khat chewing on nutritional status. Community based comparative cross-sectional study had been conducted from March to June, 2015; with cluster sampling and systematic random sampling techniques for khat chewers and non-khat chewers respectively. The data was collected by using interview administered questionnaire, observation and weight scale measurement among 504 study participants.The study revealed that from entire khat chewers 52(20.5%) of them and of non-khat chewers 34(13.5%) of them were underweight. Khat chewers were 2.102 times more likely underweight compared to those non-khat chewers. khat chewers who had meal twice per day were 2.856 time more likely underweight. Khat chewers who used animal and animal products as their main meal component daily were 0.413 times less likely to be underweight; Whereas the odds of underweight was 26% times less likely among khat users who intake two liters of fluid per chewing session. In other case, those who chewed khat for 2-3 hours per session were 0.231 times less likely to be underweight.Under nutrition is a public nutritional status problem in which khat chewers are more affected. Khat chewing conditions and meal conditions including amount of fluid consumed per chewing session are factors that affect the nutritional status of the khat chewers. Minimizing amount of khat consumed per session, shortening of khat chewing session length and increasing amount of fluid intake more than two liters per chewing session and nutritional management with nutritionist advices are important points.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".