Discordance between lifestyle-related health beliefs and behaviours of Saudi women in Dammam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Women living in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia including in the Eastern Province have a high prevalence of lifestyle-related conditions for which targeted health education strategies are needed. This study’s objective was to explore their self-reported health status and the congruence of their lifestyle-related health beliefs and practices to inform health education programme development. Methods: A cross section of community-living Saudi women ( N = 407) living in Dammam (the capital of the Eastern Province) was sampled from regional health centres. Participants completed an interview survey questionnaire about their health status and their lifestyle-related health beliefs and practices. Results: In all, 44% of participants reported having an average but not excellent health. This finding was at odds with their unequivocal, evidence-supported beliefs about the positive relationship between exercise, good nutrition, not smoking and manageable stress, with health (⩾97%). Despite these strong beliefs, participants reported suboptimal levels of exercise, nutritional choices, stress and sleep quality and quantity for maximal health and wellbeing. Conclusion: Studies are warranted to explore and explain marked discrepancy between the positive health beliefs and lifestyle-related health practices of Saudi women living in Dammam, and to design effective health promotion education programmes to address this gap. Improving Saudi women’s health by narrowing the lifestyle-related health belief–practice gap may also maximise the health of families, given women’s pivotal role in managing the family, as well as individual health.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".