Coping with the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study to investigate how mental health, lifestyle, and socio-demographic factors shape students’ quality of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The high prevalence of COVID-19 has had an impact on the Quality of Life (QOL) of people across the world, particularly students. The purpose of this study was to investigate the social, lifestyle, and mental health aspects that are associated with QOL among university students in Lebanon. METHODS: A cross-sectional study design was implemented using a convenience sampling approach. Data collection took place between November 2021 and February 2022, involving 329 undergraduate and graduate students from private and public universities. Quality of life was assessed using the Quality-of-Life Scale (QOLS). Descriptive statistics, Cronbach's alpha, and linear regression-based methods were used to analyze the association between QOL and socio-demographic, health-related, lifestyle, and mental health factors. The significance level for statistical analysis was predetermined at α = 0.05. RESULTS: The study participants' average (SD) QOL score was 76.03 (15.6) with a Cronbach alpha of 0.911. QOL was positively associated with importance of religion in daily decisions (β = 6.40, p = 0.006), household income (β = 5.25, p = 0.017), general health ratings (β Excellent/poor = 23.52, p <0.001), access to private counseling (β = 4.05, p = 0.020), physical exercise (β = 6.67, p <0.001), and a healthy diet (β = 4.62, p = 0.026); and negatively associated with cigarette smoking (β increased = -6.25, p = 0.030), internet use (β ≥4 hours = -7.01, p = 0.005), depression (β = -0.56, p = 0.002) and stress (β = -0.93, p <0.001). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, this study reveals the key factors that positively and negatively influence students' quality of life (QOL). Factors such as religion, higher income, and a healthy diet improve QOL, while depression, stress, excessive internet use, and cigarette smoking negatively impact it. Universities should prioritize initiatives like physical activity promotion, affordable nutritious options, destigmatizing mental health, counseling services, and self-help interventions to support student well-being and enhance their QOL.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".