Association of Nutritional Status Measures with Self-efficacy and Experiencing Depressed Mood Among Pakistani Young Women (P10-090-19)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aimed to assess self-efficacy and the experience of depression-related emotions among non-pregnant adolescent and young women (15–23 years) living in rural Pakistan, and determine their association with measures of nutritional status. Outcomes were assessed from the Matiari emPowerment and Preconception Supplementation (MaPPS) Trial baseline data (n = 25,279). Self-efficacy and depression-related emotions were determined and categorized using the general self-efficacy scale (low, moderate, and high) and DASS-21 tool (normal, mild, moderate, severe, and extremely severe), respectively. Nutritional status was evaluated using hemoglobin concentration (HemoCue Hb 301 System) and body mass index (BMI). Associations were assessed using ordinal logistic regression, and multivariate models were adjusted for education, parity, wealth index, and clustering. The majority of participants were categorized as having moderate self-efficacy (50.6%) and experienced normal range depression-related emotions (76.3%). The mean hemoglobin concentration and BMI were 11.5 ± 1.9 g/dL and 20.2 ± 3.8 kg/m2, respectively. Each unit of increase in hemoglobin was associated with having higher self-efficacy (β = 0.018; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.005 to 0.031) and lower severe depression-like emotions (β = -0.018; 95% CI: -0.033 to -0.002). Similarly, BMI was associated with higher self-efficacy (β = 0.010; 95% CI: 0.004 to 0.017) and lower severe depression-like emotions (β = -0.014; 95% CI: -0.022 to -0.007). For all models, however, wealth index had a stronger effect on the outcomes of interest. Poor nutritional status is suggested to be associated with behavioral organization and one’s emotional state. In this setting with a high prevalence of micronutrient deficiencies, we observed associations between lower hemoglobin and BMI with low self-efficacy and experiencing depressed mood, although the effect sizes were small. Findings may reflect potential confounding in the link between empowerment and mood, and poverty. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, World Food Programme.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".