ArticleCureus2024
Quality of Life of Healthcare College Students in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceptions, attitudes, and curriculum reflections: exploring healthcare students' engagement with basic medical sciences in Saudi Arabia.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Health-Related Quality of Life and Its Association With Multimorbidity Among University Students in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of patient experience · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of this study was to assess the quality of life (QOL) and its influencing factors among healthcare college students in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted among healthcare students at King Saud University. A modified version of the Arabic World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) questionnaire, including 25 questions, was used to assess students' QOL. Data were collected through an online survey and analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Descriptive and regression statistics were used.
resultsA total of 547 healthcare students completed the questionnaire during the data collection period. Of all the students, 39.7% were from applied medical college, 62.5% were females, 98.9% were single, and 91.8% were non-smokers. Regarding academic status, 58.3% did not participate in any extracurricular activity, 42.6% had an academic advisor, and 80.4% had a grade point average (GPA) higher than 4.1. The average QOL score across all domains was moderately good (60.30 ± 16.0), whereas the physical domain showed the poorest score (46.89 ± 14.8) while the environmental domain had the greatest score (68.04 ± 20.6). The environmental domain was the only domain that showed significant differences between healthcare colleges (p < 0.001). Moreover, students who were male (p = 0.009), non-smokers (p = 0.023), reported living with family/friends (p = 0.031), and from families with high monthly income (p < 0.001) had significantly higher environmental QOL scores than their counterparts.
conclusionsThe study found that healthcare students had moderately good mean QOL scores. The environmental domain was the only QOL domain that showed significant differences between healthcare colleges with the greatest score among medical college students. Gender, smoking status, residence status, and family monthly income were found to have a strong association with students' environmental QOL scores. Institutions need to focus on the regular measurement of students' QOL, which facilitates implementing strategies that can promote their overall QOL and subsequently positively impact their performance academically and practically.
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.