Health Status, Behaviors, and Beliefs of Health Sciences Students and Staff at Kuwait University: Toward Maximizing the Health of Future Health Professionals and Their Patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health professionals who engage in healthy lifestyle behaviors are more likely to promote their patients’ health. We evaluated health status, behaviors, and beliefs of students (future health professionals) and staff in four health sciences faculties, Kuwait University. In total, 600 students and 231 staff participated in this descriptive cross-sectional study. Questionnaire surveys were used to evaluate lifestyle-related practices and participants’ beliefs about these practices, in addition to health-related objective measures, e.g., heart rate, blood pressure, and body mass index. Overweight/obesity was prevalent among the participants (staff, 68.7%, students, 48.1%; p < 0.001); 57% of staff had suboptimal resting blood pressures. About half of the participants reported being moderately physically active (staff, 44.8%, students, 52.6%; p < 0.05), and most reported moderate/high stress (staff, 88.8%, students, 90.9%; p > 0.05). Only 25.1% of staff and 27.9% of students reported at least 8 h sleep nightly (p > 0.05). Staff reported healthier dietary practices than students (p-value range < 0.001–0.02). Overall, the participants had sub-optimal health indices. A marked gap existed between participants’ beliefs about healthy lifestyle practices and their actual health status. Healthy lifestyle programs are needed on campus with respect to diet, exercise, and stress management. As emerging health professionals, students in health sciences faculties, Kuwait University, need exposure to a health-promoting environment including healthy staff as role models.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it