Understanding Whole-Person Health and Resilience During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond: A Cross-sectional and Descriptive Correlation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted an interest in whole-person health and emotional well-being. Informatics solutions through user-friendly tools such as mobile health apps offer immense value. Prior research developed a consumer-facing app MyStrengths + MyHealth using Simplified Omaha System Terms (SOST) to assess whole-person health. The MyStrengths + MyHealth app assesses strengths, challenges, and needs (SCN) for 42 concepts across four domains (My Living, My Mind and Networks, My Body, My Self-care; eg, Income, Emotions, Pain, and Nutrition, respectively). Given that emotional well-being was a predominant concern during the COVID-19 pandemic, we sought to understand whole-person health for participants with/without Emotions challenges. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to use visualization techniques and data from attendees at a Midwest state fair to examine SCN overall and by groups with/without Emotions challenges, and to explore the resilience of participants. METHODS: This cross-sectional and descriptive correlational study surveyed adult attendees at a 2021 Midwest state fair. Data were visualized using Excel and analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics using SPSS. RESULTS: The study participants (N=182) were primarily female (n=123, 67.6%), aged ≥45 years (n=112, 61.5%), White (n=154, 84.6%), and non-Hispanic (n=177, 97.3%). Compared to those without Emotions challenges, those with Emotions challenges were aged 18-44 (P<.001) years, more often female (P=.02), and not married (P=.01). Overall, participants had more strengths (mean 28.6, SD 10.5) than challenges (mean 12, SD 7.5) and needs (mean 4.2, SD 7.5). The most frequent needs were in Emotions, Nutrition, Income, Sleeping, and Exercising. Compared to those without Emotions challenges, those with Emotions challenges had fewer strengths (P<.001), more challenges (P<.001), and more needs (P<.001), along with fewer strengths for Emotions (P<.001) and for the cluster of health-related behaviors domain concepts, Sleeping (P=.002), Nutrition (P<.001), and Exercising (P<.001). Resilience was operationalized as correlations among strengths for SOST concepts and visualized for participants with/without an Emotions challenge. Those without Emotions challenges had more positive strengths correlations across multiple concepts/domains. CONCLUSIONS: This survey study explored a large community-generated data set to understand whole-person health and showed between-group differences in SCN and resilience for participants with/without Emotions challenges. It contributes to the literature regarding an app-aided and data-driven approach to whole-person health and resilience. This research demonstrates the power of health informatics and provides researchers with a data-driven methodology for additional studies to build evidence on whole-person health and resilience.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".