MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392056059 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2024.1324663

Health behavior profiles and association with mental health status among US active-duty service members

2024· article· en· W4392056059 on OpenAlexaff
Bolanle Olapeju, Zoé Mistrale Hendrickson, Patrice Shanahan, Omar Mushtaq, Anwar Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthMedicineOdds ratioBinge drinkingLatent class modelActive dutyEnvironmental healthPsychiatryDemographyPoison controlSuicide preventionPsychologyMilitary personnel

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: This study investigated the clustering of health behaviors among US active duty servicemembers (ADSM) into risk profiles and explored the association between these profiles with ADSM sociodemographic characteristics and mental health status. Methods: This study utilized secondary data from the 2018 Health Related Behaviors Survey (HRBS), a Department of Defense (DoD) self-administered online survey. Health behaviors included physical activity, screen use, sleep habits, tobacco/substance use, alcohol drinking, preventive health care seeking and condom use at last sex/having multiple sexual partners. Past-year mental health status was measured using the Kessler Screening Scale for Psychological Distress (K6). Latent class analysis (LCA) on health behaviors was used to cluster ADSMs into risk profiles. Multivariable logistic model was used to examine whether ADSM characteristics and mental health status were associated with ADSMs' risk profiles. Results: The LCA identified a four-class model that clustered ADSMs into the following sub-groups: (1) Risk Inclined (14.4%), (2) High Screen Users (51.1%), (3) Poor Sleepers (23.9%) and (4) Risk Averse (10.6). Over a tenth (16.4%) of ADSMs were categorized as having serious psychological distress. Being male, younger, less educated, in the Army, Marine Corps or Navy were associated with higher odds of being Risk Inclined (AOR ranging from 1.26 to 2.42). Compared to the reference group of Risk Adverse ADSMs, those categorized as Risk Inclined (AOR: 8.30; 95% CI: 5.16-13.36), High Screen Users (AOR: 2.44; 95% CI: 1.56-3.82) and Poor Sleepers (AOR: 5.26; 95% CI: 3.38-8.19) had significantly higher odds of having serious psychological distress. Discussion: Study findings suggest opportunities to tailor behavioral and health promotion interventions for each of the distinct risk profiles. For example, ADSM described as Risk Inclined may benefit from preventive mental health services. Solutions for ADSM described as Poor Sleepers may include education on sleep hygiene; instituting duty schedules; and shifting military cultural norms to promote sleep hygiene as a pathway to optimal performance and thus military readiness. ADSM with low-risk behavior profiles such as those described as Risk Averse may prove beneficial in the roll-out of interventions as they act as peer-educators or mentors.

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)0.000
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Public HealthSame topicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207