Health-related behaviours and their relationship with self-rated health among Canadian adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Self-rated health (SRH) is a commonly used survey measure as a substitute for a clinical measure of health, which has demonstrated validity and reliability in a variety of populations. The referents that individuals incorporate into their self-evaluations have been shown to include health-related behaviours, though these relationships are not static. Our purpose was to describe and test for relationships between health-related behaviours and SRH among Canadian adults. METHODS: We used pooled data from the Canadian Health Measures Surveys Cycles 3 (2012-13) and 4 (2014-15). All men and non-pregnant women aged 18 years and older were included (n = 6,789). We used binary logistic regression to test for relationships between health-related behaviours and SRH, including smoking status, adequate fruit and vegetable intake, inadequate sleep, alcohol use, and adequate physical activity. RESULTS: The majority of respondents rated their health as good, very good, or excellent, though differences in SRH were found according to age group, highest level of household education, and income adequacy. Inadequate sleep was most strongly associated with poorer SRH among men and women combined, as compared to other health-related behaviours. Among women only, those who report heavy episodic drinking (OR, 2.64) or daily drinking (OR, 3.51) rated their health better, as compared to women who report low-risk alcohol use. CONCLUSIONS: Sleep quality is an important predictor of SRH for both men and women. Second, sex/gender differences must be considered in strategies to address alcohol use, as we may not be fully appreciating potentially health-affirming qualities associated with alcohol use among women.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".