Fostering active living and healthy eating through understanding physical activity and dietary behaviours of Arabic-speaking adults: a cross-sectional study from the Middle East
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Physical inactivity and unhealthy diets increase the risk for diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and cancer. Many people in Qatar are sedentary and consume diets high in fats, salt and sugar. The purpose of this study was to determine physical activity levels, food habits and understand the variables that might predict physical activity and healthy eating behaviours among Arabic-speaking adults living in the State of Qatar. SETTING: A cross-sectional community-based survey was conducted with 1606 Arab adults ≥18 years of age from March 2013 to June 2015. Using a non-probability sampling technique, participants were recruited from three universities and five primary healthcare centres in Qatar. Participants were interviewed using a structured survey questionnaire. The survey included questions regarding demography, clinical characteristics and the participant's daily dietary practice. Physical activity level was assessed by the Arabic version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS V.22.0. RESULTS: . Two-thirds of the participants were either overweight (36.4%) or obese (33.6%). Within the 7 days prior to completing the questionnaire, 64% and 39.9% of study participants did not engage in vigorous or moderate physical activity, respectively. Within the 7 days prior to completing the questionnaire, the mean (SD) time for vigorous physical activity was 31.12 (59.28) min, 46.87 (63.01) min for moderate physical activity, and 42.01 (47.04) min for walking. One-third of the participants consumed fresh fruits and vegetables once or more daily, and fish, beef or chicken 2-4 times weekly. One quarter of the participants ate pasta, cakes or pastries 2-4 times weekly, and 40.6% of them ate white bread daily. CONCLUSIONS: Participants exhibited insufficient physical activity and poor dietary habits. There is a need for a nationwide health promotion programme to promote a healthier lifestyle. The information from this study can inform public health policies, programmes and services in Qatar and other Middle Eastern countries.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".