ArticleEnvironmental health and preventive medicine2017
Certain personal and environmental factors as predictors of thermal sensation perceived by a population of students in a university setting from Timisoara, Romania: a case study.
Article in Environmental health and preventive medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the performed study was to investigate personal and environmental factors as predictors of thermal sensation perceived by a population of students in a university setting.
methodsThe study consisted of two samples, a winter sample (154 students: 44.2% males and 55.8% females, aged 19-30 years) and a spring sample (147 students: 52.4% males and 47.6% females, aged 19-30 years), randomly selected from the same population of students. The method was an observational inquiry (case study) with a standardized questionnaire (11 items, 3 items for thermal sensation assessing through 3 scales with 3, 5 and 7 steps, alpha Cronbach's index 0.854) applied and establishing 3 microclimate factors (air temperature, relative humidity and wind velocity), with calculation of normal effective temperature. The survey was performed over four successive days, during two seasons (winter-February and spring-May).
resultsThe performed study demonstrated a tendency of students to perceive the comfortably cold more frequently than comfortably warm throughout the 4 days of the survey during the winter, except Monday. Thermal sensation of discomfort was more frequently perceived as warm than cold throughout the spring time of the survey and winter, except Tuesday. Predictors of thermal sensation perceived by students in the amphitheatre were as follows: nationality (-2loglikelihood change or chi square = 42.12, Sig. 0.000), relative humidity (chi square = 10.65, Sig. 0.005) and gender during the winter, and wind velocity (change in -2loglikelihood = 11.96, Sig. 0.001) and nationality during the spring.
conclusionsCertain personal and environmental factors were suggested as predictors for thermal sensation perceived by a population of students in a study setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.