MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210517989 · doi:10.1111/nhs.12923

The associations between lifestyle factors and mental well‐being in baccalaureate nursing students: An observational study

2022· article· en· W4210517989 on OpenAlexaffabout
Charlotte Lee, Grace Ting, Nick Bellissimo, Saman Khalesi

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing and Health Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Wellbeing Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyMental healthAnxietyPsychological interventionDepression (economics)MedicineGerontologyNursingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lifestyle factors are modifiable habits that shape the way in which individuals live their lives and can influence mental health. This study examined the associations between lifestyle factors and mental well-being among baccalaureate nursing students at one Canadian university. A cross-sectional, observational online survey was distributed at one urban university campus in Ontario, Canada. Baccalaureate nursing students (n = 147) completed the survey containing questions for demographic variables, sleep quality, dietary pattern, alcohol use, physical activity, sitting time, cigarette smoking, depression, anxiety and stress. Linear regression analysis revealed that more sitting time, poor sleep quality, and low dairy consumption were associated with higher scores in depression, anxiety, and psychological stress. In conclusion, poor lifestyle behaviors such as sedentary lifestyle, poor sleep, and low dairy consumption may reduce the mental well-being of baccalaureate nursing students. Future efforts should aim to establish a causal relationship between lifestyle and mental well-being, which would contribute to the development of lifestyle interventions to promote mental health.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.408
Threshold uncertainty score0.811

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.290
GPT teacher head0.570
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing and Health SciencesSame topicHealth and Wellbeing ResearchFrench-language works237,207