Patterns of Physical Activity Among University Students and Their Perceptions About the Curricular Content Concerned With Health: Cross-sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: University students are at risk of losing their focus on maintaining healthy levels of physical activity because of their engagements with curricular and cocurricular activities. In India, the physical activity levels of the adult population have been reported to be declining in the recent years. However, studies focusing on university students pertaining to their physical activity are lacking in the Indian context. Moreover, a question that has not been properly addressed is the following: "do the curricula in higher education promote physical activity?" OBJECTIVE: Our paper aims at describing the physical activity levels of the students in a large public-funded central university located in northern India. The study also aims at capturing the student perceptions about the emphasis they receive on leading a physically active lifestyle during their routine curricular activities. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional descriptive study and uses International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Long Form to record physical activity among 4586 students. Stratified sampling method was used to enroll the students from each stream (faculty). Out of 30,667 students, about 15% were included from each faculty. The study was conducted between 2016 and 2019. To capture the student perceptions, we used a newly developed 5-item scale. RESULTS: From a total of 4586 participants in the study, 2828 (61.7%) were male and 1758 (38.3%) were female students. The mean age of our sample was 22.34 (SD 3.12) years. Our results indicate that about 14.5% (n=666) of all students in the study fall under the "Inactive" category. Furthermore, the perception about the curricular content pertaining to physical activity varied widely between the students of different streams. CONCLUSIONS: Our sample reported a better physical activity pattern in comparison to the reported overall physical activity levels of the adult population of India. Our results also suggest that health-related topics are inadequately represented in many of the streams of higher education in the university.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".