High Risk Health Behavior among Malaysian Adolescents: A Comparison between Gender
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The main objective was to study health risk behaviours, knowledge and perception amongst Malaysian adolescents aged between 13-17 years of age. METHODS: Modified version of Youth Behaviour Risk Factor Surveillance System (YBRFSS) was used in this nationwide cross-sectional study involving 5,000 students enrolled from 50 selected schools, by adopting multi-stage sampling with randomization of schools and classes from all states in Malaysia. Descriptive data for behaviours, knowledge and perception were also compared between genders. RESULTS: Overall, 72.6% and 21.1% adolescents were found to not perform adequate exercise or did not perform any exercise, respectively. Majority of them also (81.8%) spent time watching TV beyond one hour per day. Although overall compliance to meal timings showed better result for girls (89.2%) than boys (84.8%); non-compliance to breakfast timing was the most frequent (74.7%) compared to other meal timings. Signs of continuous sadness ranked highest (21.3%), followed by signs of depression (9.4%) and suicidal ideation (7.8%). Girls suffered worse than boys for signs of continuous sadness (25.4% vs. 16.2%) and suicidal ideation (10.4% vs. 4.5%). In terms of perception, only 50.1% responded favourably to managing their anger. Boys were more satisfied with their own body weight and body shapes compared with the girls (43.3% vs. 34.7%; 45.3% vs. 37.9%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Although adolescents in Malaysia had good overall knowledge and perception on the healthy habits, they still practiced risky behaviours which may lead to early morbidity and mortality among adolescence.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".