Comparing Personal Health Practices: Individuals with mental illness and the general Canadian population.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Individuals with mental illness often live in chronic poverty, which is associated with personal health practices such as tobacco use and poor nutrition that disrupt physical health. The purpose of our study was to examine whether differences exist in personal health and health practices - related to nutrition, physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption and sleep - between a cohort of individuals with mental illness in southwestern Ontario and the general Canadian population. METHOD: The study sample consisted of 250 individuals who had had a psychiatric diagnosis for at least one year. We conducted a structured quantitative interview with each person to gather information about their personal health and health practices, using question wording from the National Population Health Survey and the Canadian Community Health Survey. We calculated 95% confidence intervals for our results and used them to compare our data with Canadian norms. RESULTS: Individuals with mental illness are significantly more likely than the general population to have a poor diet, experience poor sleep and consume alcohol in excess. CONCLUSION: It is important for nurses, health-care organizations and policy-makers to be aware that a number of factors may be influencing the personal health and health practices of individuals with mental illness and that this population may require different health promotion strategies to support a healthy lifestyle.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".