BackgroundCollege is a critical time where students are more prone to engage in risky health behaviors known to negatively affect well-being, such as physical inactivity, stress, and poor dietary habits. A health promoting lifestyle is an important determinant of health status and is recognized as a major factor for the maintenance and improvement of health. This study was designed to assess the health-promoting lifestyle of students in health colleges and non-health colleges in Saudi Arabia.MethodsA total of 1656 students participated in this descriptive cross-sectional study. Data gathering was conducted from November 2016 to February 2017 at King Saud University. Participating students completed a self-reported questionnaire that included questions regarding their demographic characteristics and their health-promoting behaviors.ResultsThe majority of participants were females (70.4%), 20% of the participants were overweight and 11.3%, were obese. The analysis showed that there was a significant difference between health colleges and non-health colleges with regards to the factor of health responsibility. Students at both schools were found to have an inadequate level of adherence to recommendations regarding physical activity and healthy eating habits. The analysis also found that majority of the students in both colleges do not attend educational programs on health care. The model shows that gender, type of college, year in school, and family structure were significant predictors of the health lifestyle of students in Saudi Arabia.ConclusionThe results of the current study indicate that university students are leading unhealthy lives, where the majority of them have unhealthy eating habits and poor physical activity level. Universities are ideal settings for implementing health promotion programs. Therefore, planning and implementing programs to motivate students to be more responsible for their own health, to engage more in physical activity, and to practice healthy eating habits and other forms of wellness are of paramount importance.

ObjectiveTo compare gender differences in pain management among adult cancer patients in Saudi Arabia and to explore the predictors associated with attitudinal barriers of cancer patients to pain management.MethodsA descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted among 325 cancer patients from tertiary hospitals in Saudi Arabia.ResultOf the total participants, 67.4% were women (N = 219) and 32.6% were men (N = 106). The overall mean scores of the attitudinal barriers questionnaire were 49.51 ± 13.73 in men and 54.80 ± 22.53 in women. The analysis shows significant differences in scores in subscales of tolerance (men = 7.48 ± 2.37), (women = 8.41 ± 3.01) (p = 0.003) and fear of distraction in the course of treatment (men = 6.55 ± 1.34), and (women = 7.15 ± 2.63) (p = 0.008). Female patients reported a more moderate to severe level of pain than men (worst pain in last week of 7.07 ± 1.50, worst pain in last week of 5.84 ± 2.65, respectively). Splitting by gender, the significant predictor for physiology effect domains in male cancer patients includes age, marital status, employment status, monthly income, cancer type, and presence of comorbid disease (p < 0.050). Age was a significant predictor of the domains of fatalism, communication, and harmful effects (p < 0.050) among female cancer patients.ConclusionThe present study revealed significant differences between men and women with attitudinal barriers to cancer pain management. Managing pain requires the involvement of all methods in a comprehensive manner, thus unalleviated pain influences the patient’s psychological or cognitive aspect.

Background Epidemiological studies of incidence play an essential role in quantifying disease burden, resource planning, and informing public health policies. A variety of measures for estimating cancer incidence have been used. Appropriate reporting of incidence calculations is essential to enable clear interpretation. This review uses colorectal cancer (CRC) as an exemplar to summarize and describe variation in commonly employed incidence measures and evaluate the quality of reporting incidence methods. Methods We searched four databases for CRC incidence studies published between January 2010 and May 2020. Two independent reviewers screened all titles and abstracts. Eligible studies were population-based cancer registry studies evaluating CRC incidence. We extracted data on study characteristics and author-defined criteria for assessing the quality of reporting incidence. We used descriptive statistics to summarize the information. Results This review retrieved 165 relevant articles. The age-standardized incidence rate (ASR) (80%) was the most commonly reported incidence measure, and the 2000 U.S. standard population the most commonly used reference population (39%). Slightly more than half (54%) of the studies reported CRC incidence stratified by anatomical site. The quality of reporting incidence methods was suboptimal. Of all included studies: 45 (27%) failed to report the classification system used to define CRC; 63 (38%) did not report CRC codes; and only 20 (12%) documented excluding certain CRC cases from the numerator. Concerning the denominator estimation: 61% of studies failed to state the source of population data; 24 (15%) indicated census years; 10 (6%) reported the method used to estimate yearly population counts; and only 5 (3%) explicitly explained the population size estimation procedure to calculate the overall average incidence rate. Thirty-three (20%) studies reported the confidence interval for incidence, and only 7 (4%) documented methods for dealing with missing data. Conclusion This review identified variations in incidence calculation and inadequate reporting of methods. We outlined recommendations to optimize incidence estimation and reporting practices. There is a need to establish clear guidelines for incidence reporting to facilitate assessment of the validity and interpretation of reported incidence.

BackgroundMonitoring cancer trends in a population is essential for tracking the disease’s burden, allocating resources, and informing public health policies. This review describes variations in commonly employed methods to estimate colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence trends.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search in four databases to identify population-based studies reporting CRC incidence trends, published between January 2010 and May 2020. We extracted and described data on methods to estimate trends and assess model validity, and the software used.ResultsThis review included 145 articles based on studies conducted in five continents. The majority (93%) presented visual summaries of trends combined with absolute, relative, or annual change estimates. Fourteen (10%) articles exclusively calculated the relative change in incidence over a given time interval, presented as the percentage of change in rates. Joinpoint regression analysis was the most commonly used method for assessing incidence trends (n= 65, 45%), providing estimates of the annual percentage change (APC) in rates. Nineteen (13%) studies performed Poisson regression and 18 (12%) linear regression analysis. Age-period-cohort modeling- a type of generalized linear models- was conducted in 18 (12%) studies. Thirty-nine (37%) of the studies modeling incidence trends (n=104, 72%) indicated the method used to evaluate model fitness. The joinpoint program (52%) was the statistical software most commonly used.ConclusionThis review identified variation in the calculation of CRC incidence trends and inadequate reporting of model fit statistics. Our findings highlight the need for increasing clarity and transparency in reporting methods to facilitate interpretation, reproduction, and comparison with findings from previous studies.