A Quasi‐Experimental Study Investigating the Impact of a Lifestyle Redesign Program on the Well‐Being of Korean University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Korean university students (KUS) face numerous challenges that can jeopardize their well-being, including academic stress, peer pressure, irregular sleep patterns, unhealthy eating habits, lack of physical exercise, and difficulties in time management, resulting in unhealthy habits and fluctuations in lifestyle. Consequently, there is a growing need for interventions tailored to this population. Aim: This study explored the effects of a Lifestyle Redesign (LR) intervention on Korean university students' well-being including occupational participation, satisfaction, perceived stress levels, and quality of life. Method: A quasi-experimental study with 33 KUS (17 intervention, 16 control) assessed the effects of a 10-week LR intervention on well-being of the students. Pre- and postintervention changes were measured using Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), Stress Response Inventory (SRI), and World Health Organization Quality of Life Scale Abbreviated Version (WHOQOL-BREF). The intervention, delivered by trained OTs, comprised of individual and group sessions. Results: Statistically significant improvement was observed in occupational performance. While statistical significance was not consistently achieved in the rest of other areas, the LR group displayed positive trends. The LR group exhibited higher COPM satisfaction scores, lower SRI scores (indicating reduced stress), and elevated WHOQOL-BREF scores compared to the control group. Conclusion: This study contributes to the understanding of the importance of addressing lifestyle changes and habits in the well-being of university students, especially in the context of academic stress and peer pressure. Future research with larger, more diverse samples and extended intervention periods may offer further insights into the benefits of LR programs in university settings.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".