Feasibility of Monitoring Health and Well-being in Emerging Adults: Pilot Longitudinal Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emerging adulthood is a distinct segment of an individual's life course. The defining features of this transitional period include identity exploration, instability, future possibilities, self-focus, and feeling in-between, all of which are thought to affect quality of life, health, and well-being. A longitudinal cohort study with a comprehensive set of measures would be a valuable resource for improving the understanding of the multifaceted elements and unique challenges that contribute to the health and well-being of emerging adults. OBJECTIVE: The main aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of recruiting university graduates to establish a longitudinal cohort study to inform the understanding of emerging adulthood. METHODS: This pilot study was conducted among graduates at a large university. It involved collecting web-based survey data at baseline (ie, graduation) and 12 months post baseline, and linking survey responses to health records from administrative data collections. The feasibility outcome measures of interest included the recruitment rate, response rate, retention rate, data linkage opt-out rate, and availability of linked health records. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the representativeness of the sample, completeness of the survey responses, and data linkage characteristics. RESULTS: Only 2.8% of invited graduates (238/8532) agreed to participate in this pilot cohort study, of whom 59.7% (142/238) responded to the baseline survey. The retention rate between the baseline and follow-up surveys was 69.7% (99/142). The completeness of the surveys was excellent, with the proportion of answered questions in each survey domain ranging from 87.3% to 100% in both the baseline and follow-up surveys. The data linkage opt-out rate was 32.4% (77/238). CONCLUSIONS: The overall recruitment rate was poor, while the completeness of survey responses among respondents ranged from good to excellent. There was reasonable acceptability for conducting data linkage of health records from administrative data collections and survey responses. This pilot study offers insights and recommendations for future research aiming to establish a longitudinal cohort study to investigate health and well-being in emerging adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number ACTRN12618001364268; https://tinyurl.com/teec8wh. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/16108.
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 | 0.024 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".