Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives

qr code

open access

eISSN 2233-6052  l  pISSN 2210-9099

Osong Public Health Res Perspect > 10(4); 2019 > Article

Amiri, Chaman, and Khosravi: The Relationship Between Health-Promoting Lifestyle and Its Related Factors with Self-Efficacy and Well-Being of Students

Abstract

ObjectivesUnhealthy lifestyles among young people are seriously related to incapacity and health problems in adulthood. The aim of this study was to determine the importance of a health-promoting lifestyle and its association with self-efficacy and well-being.

MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, a sample of 500 students from Shahroud University of Medical Sciences (Shahroud, Iran) were randomly selected in 2017. The Persian versions of Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile, Self-Efficacy Scale, and WHO-5 Well-Being Index were used.

ResultsAmong the participants, 34% of students had an abnormal imaginable well-being, and 68% of students had high self-efficacy. The mean score of a health-promoting lifestyle was 127.47 ± 19.78, which is interpreted as moderate, and the mean score of physical activity was 14.10 ± 4.95, which is poor. There was a significant relationship between well-being, and self-efficacy with health-promoting lifestyle. Age, gender, educational level, place of residence, student employment, self-efficacy, and well-being were associated with students’ lifestyles.

ConclusionA health-promoting lifestyle of students in this study was moderate and they did not have an acceptable level of physical activity. The direct effect of well-being, and self-efficacy on lifestyle, revising students’ curriculums to improve their health behaviors, and general health indicators, can all lead to the enhancement of health-promoting lifestyles.

Keywords: life style; physical activity; students

IntroductionUniversity students form a large part of the young population, and as future decision makers, they are of great importance to organizations, communities and the whole country. Studying at colleges is a period in which students increasingly make independent decisions about their lifestyle and health performance [1]. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines lifestyle as distinct and identifiable behavioral patterns which derive from the interaction between personality traits, social relationships, environmental conditions, and socioeconomic status [2], playing a significant role in the health of both the individual and society. Health-promoting lifestyle has 6 dimensions of spiritual growth, health responsibility, interpersonal relationships, stress management, physical activity, and nutrition. This lifestyle, in addition to maintaining and enhancing the level of health and well-being, brings about a sense of satisfaction and self-actualization [3,4]. The lifestyle of individuals is affected by various factors such as gender, family structure, place of residence and socioeconomic conditions [5]. There is evidence that an unhealthy lifestyle among young people is adversely related to incapacity and health problems in adulthood, and if unhealthy behaviors are detected and managed at an early stage, many risk factors for health can be avoided [68]. Unfortunately, the prevalence of lifestyle-related conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and cancers due to inactivity, obesity, smoking, inappropriate diet, and lack of appropriate lifestyle choices has dramatically grown among young people in recent years [4,9].Moreover, organizations including healthcare organizations, need to promote employees to have a good general health and self-worth. Self-efficacy is a constructive power by which the cognitive, social, emotional and behavioral skills of an individual are organized efficiently to achieve different goals, and it is an important factor for the successful performance of the individual, and for acquiring the basic skills necessary for accomplishing things [10,11].Medical students have a great role in educating community members (including patients), and attempts to improve students’ lifestyles aspects will ultimately enhance the health status of the community. In other words, having a good lifestyle and having enough routine physical activity on the part of healthcare workers is likely to encourage patients to take action to improve their health [1214].Health-promoting behavior among students at various medical universities, have shown elevated levels of high-risk behaviors among students. Therefore, to improve their health status, more understanding of the influential factors is necessary to promote a healthy lifestyle [3,6,1521].In a study conducted in China, few students had a desirable healthy lifestyle [6]. Some studies in Malaysia, Hong Kong, Iran, Jordan and Turkey indicated a moderate level of lifestyle among medical students [12,2229]. Lifestyle, gender, marital status [2224], educational level, parental education, family economic status, smoking, and general health [25] may all affect a healthy lifestyle.Since life at university is a transitional stage when students leave home and become independent some factors such as having a tight schedule, being away from family, skipping meals, using fast foods, dieting, as well as the type and amount of physical activity, may affect the students’ lifestyles. Therefore, being aware of their lifestyle, and modifying it where necessary may alleviate problems in adulthood for themselves and maybe their community. Considering the importance of this issue, the aim of this study was to determine the status of health-promoting lifestyle among university students, and its association with self-efficacy and well-being.

Materials and MethodsIn this cross-sectional study performed in 2017, 500 medical students were randomly selected through a multistage stratified sampling method. At the first stage, according to the total number of the students studying in the university, it was decided that 25% of the students in each faculty (school of health, school of medicine, school of nursing and midwifery and school of para-medicine) would be selected as the samples of the study. In the next step, according to the number of semesters and fields of study in each faculty, 25% of them were randomly selected. The response rate was 93%.This study was approved by the Ethics Review Committee of Shahroud University of Medical Sciences, Shahroud, with the code of IR.SHMU.REC.1396.06. The questionnaire used in the study consisted of 2 parts. Part 1 included 15 items on demographic characteristics of age, gender, field of study, academic level, number of semesters, marital status, native or non-native to the city, current place of residence, economic status of the family, economic activities alongside education, parental place of residence, number of family members, and father’s job. Part 2 included Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile [9,30], Self-Efficacy Scale [31], and WHO-5 Well-Being Index [32]. The Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile has 6 dimensions including nutrition (8 items), physical activity (8 items), health responsibility (13 items), stress management (5 items), interpersonal relationships (8 items), and spiritual growth (10 items) on a 4-point Likert scale which ranges from never to always. The score for each item ranges from 1 to 4 and the total score can range from 52 to 208. The scores obtained in each subgroup, as well as the total scores, are divided into 3 categories. Scores of 49% and below indicate a poor health-promoting lifestyle, scores between 50% and 74% indicate a moderate and scores of 75% and above indicate a good health-promoting style. A reliability of 0.82 was reported for this profile in Iran [5]. The Self-Efficacy Scale [31] contains 17 items on a 5-point Likert scale which ranges from strongly disagree to strongly agree and each item is scored from 1 to 5. Items 1, 13, 8, 9, 3 and 15 are scored in reverse. Higher scores indicate a stronger self-efficacy and lower scores reflect a poorer self-efficacy. Questions 1–7 relate to the willingness to initiate behavior, items 8–13 are related to willingness to expend effort, and items 14–17 are on persistence in the face of adversity. This scale has a maximum score of 85 and a minimum score of 17. The score of 58 and above represents a high self-efficacy, and scores less than 58 are indicators of low self-efficacy. WHO-5 Well-Being Index has 5 items, each of which is scored from 0 to 5, and the total score on this scale can range from 0 to 25. Scores less than 13 indicate an abnormal, imaginable well-being, and a score of 13 or over indicates a good well-being status. The reliability of WHO-5 Well-Being Index is reported to be 0.94 among students [32]. The questionnaires were self-administered by the students and after completion they were analyzed using SPSS version 16.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) through ANOVA, Chi-square, t-test, backward regression model and Pearson correlation coefficient, at a significant level of 0.05.All procedures performed in this study involving students were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Shahroud University of Medical Sciences Ethics Review Committee and with the Declaration of Helsinki (and its later amendments).

ResultsIn this study, 500 (205 males and 295 females) students from Shahroud University of Medical Sciences were assessed. Among them, 34% suffered from abnormal imaginable well-being and 68% had high self-efficacy. The mean age of the participants was 21.79 ± 2.68 years, and the average score of health-promoting lifestyle was 127.47 ± 19.78, (moderate level), and the mean score of physical activity was 14.10 ± 4.95 (poor level). The mean score of general health was 13.97 ± 5.65 and the mean score of self-efficacy was 60.71 ± 8.61 (Table 1).The Chi-square test showed no significant relationship between gender, marital status, being native to the city, place of residence, economic status of student’s family, parental place of residence, father’s job, semester and year of studying at university with self-efficacy (p ≤ 0.05). However, the Chi-square test showed a significant relationship between the field of study and self-efficacy (p = 0.033) so that students of public health, occupational health, and medicine showed higher levels of self-efficacy compared to those in other fields. There was also a significant relationship between the educational level and self-efficacy (p = 0.046), and medical doctorate students showed a higher self-efficacy compared to those in bachelor’s and master’s programs. Moreover, the Chi-square test showed a significant relationship between general health and self-efficacy (p = 0.007). The Chi-square test showed no significant relationships between gender, educational level, or program, marital status, field of study, being native to the city, place of residence, economic status of the family, parental place of residence, student’s economic activities, father’s occupation, life and death of the parents, and semesters or years of studying at university with general health status (p ≤ 0.05; Table 2).Results of the t-test showed a significant relationship between general health, spiritual growth, personal relationships and physical activity with self-efficacy (p ≤ 0.05). Also, there was a significant relationship between self-efficacy, health-promoting lifestyle, spiritual growth, responsibility, personal relationships, stress management, nutrition and physical activity with general health (p ≤ 0.05; Table 3).Pearson correlation coefficient showed that there was a significant relationship between general health and self-efficacy with health-promoting lifestyle (r = 0.171, p = 0.001). Moreover, a significant association was observed between well-being and health-promoting lifestyle (r = 0.358, p < 0.001) and well-being and self-efficacy (r = 0.210, p < 0.001).A backward regression model was used to determine the factors affecting the lifestyle of the students. The variables of being native to the city, father’s occupation, age, semester, economic status of the family, field of study, marital status, gender, educational level, place of residence, economic activity during studying, self-efficacy and general health were entered into the model, and it was observed that age, gender, educational level, place of residence, economic activity during studying, self-efficacy and well-being, significantly influenced the health-promoting lifestyle of the students (p ≤ 0.05; Table 4).

DiscussionThe health-promoting lifestyle among the students was moderate according to the mean, which is consistent with some studies [12,2229]. However, it has been reported that the lifestyle of students of medical sciences is not desirable, which is not consistent with the results of this study. This difference in the scores appears to be due to differences in cultural and social contexts.The mean score of spiritual growth was 27.35 ± 5.24 which is moderate and consistent with some national and international studies [22,25,27]. A high score and a desirable status of spiritual growth among the students has been reported [26] which can also be interpreted as due to cultural and social and religious differences in other countries.The mean score of health responsibility was 34.05 ± 6.97, which is interpreted as moderate, and it is in line with another study [27]. Some studies reported lower scores, which are not consistent with the results of the present study [2226]. This may be related to their studying fields. This current study was conducted in medical students and their responsibilities can be influenced.The mean score of personal relationships was 21.59 ± 3.91. This indicates a moderate level and is consistent with the results of some studies nationally and internationally [2224,26,27]. The results of another study indicated a better situation in this dimension among students, contrary to the results of this study [25]. The mean score of stress management was 11.73 ± 2.64, which is moderate, and in line with the results of other studies [2227]. The mean score of physical activity was 14.10 ± 4.95 which is poor, but consistent with the results of another study [27]. Other studies showed that students had a better score in this dimension [2226], a finding which is not consistent with the results of the present study. Considering the importance of this issue, it seems possible to improve the scores on this dimension through raising awareness, and creating the required opportunities, and allocating space and sports facilities.The mean score on the nutrition dimension was 18.65 ± 4.14, which is moderate and consistent with the results of some studies [2226] but does not conform with another study [27]. It seems the differences in scores obtained in all dimensions of the health-promoting lifestyle are due to differences in cultural and social contexts.A significant relationship was observed between the health-promoting lifestyle of students and age. Some studies have also reported such a relationship [2325,27], while some others found no significant relationship between these 2 variables [28,29]. In addition, there was a significant relationship between health-promoting lifestyle and gender, which is consistent with the results of some studies [2224], but it does not correspond to the findings of some other studies [25,2729]. Marital status also showed no significant relationship with students’ health-promoting lifestyle contra to some studies [25,28].There was no significant relationship between the health-promoting lifestyle of the student, and his or her being native to the city, father’s job, semester, economic status of the family, the field of study, and place of residence. Nacar et al [25] pointed out in their studies that there was a correlation between the economic status of the family and the health-promoting lifestyle, which was not consistent with the results of the present study. Abeer et al referred to the lack of relationship between the economic status and the health-promoting lifestyle [26], which was consistent with the results of this study. The results of this study are partly consistent with the results of Babanezhad [29], which showed no relationship between being native to the city and lifestyle. However, the authors found a significant relationship between the field of study and lifestyle [29], which does not align with the findings of the current study.There was a significant relationship between the health-promoting lifestyle of students and their well-being. Moreover, self-efficacy showed no significant relationship with age, gender, marital status, being native to the city, place of residence, economic status of the family, student’s economic activity, father’s occupation, parent’s place of residence, life or death of the parents, and semester year of studying at university. However, there was a relationship between self-efficacy and the field of study, and educational level. Some studies confirmed the association between self-efficacy, gender, and age, but it does not align with the results of this study [33]. The mean score of self-efficacy in this study (60.71) was higher than that reported by Arshadi et al (49.26) [33]. This is probably due to the difference between the types of universities the students attended. Arshadi et al [33] focused on universities affiliated with the Ministry of Science and Technology, but the universities in this study were affiliated with the Ministry of Health.No significant relationship was observed between well-being and age, gender, field of study, educational level, marital status, being native to the city, place of residence, economic status of the family, student’s economic activity (employment), parental place of residence, father’s job, life or death of the parents and academic year of the student. However, a significant relationship was observed between general health, spiritual growth, personal relationships, and physical activity with self-efficacy. Moreover, there was a significant relationship between self-efficacy, health-promoting lifestyle, spiritual growth, responsibility, personal relationships, stress management, nutrition and physical activity with general health. The results of this study are not consistent with the findings of the study by Kaldi et al [28] on the relationship between general health and student employment during studying.This study was a well-designed study with large sample size that used standardized questionnaires. However, this is a cross-sectional study and association in this study must be interpreted cautiously. In addition, a specific group of students (including medical sciences students) were studied, therefore the findings of this study are not general to all students.

ConclusionHealth-promoting lifestyle was moderate among the students in this study and students did not have an acceptable level of physical activity. The direct effect of general health and well- being, and self-efficacy on a health-promoting lifestyle requires planning for improvements such as revising students’ curriculums to improve their health behaviors and taking note of general health indicators.

AcknowledgmentsThis study was funded by Shahroud University of Medical Sciences.

Notes

Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References
1. El Ansari W, Stock C, John J, et al. Health promoting behaviours and lifestyle characteristics of students at seven universities in the UK. Cent Eur J Public Health 2011;19(4):197–204.
[Crossref] [PubMed] [PDF]
2. Kerr J. Community health promotion: Challenges for practice 1st ed. New York (NY): Baillière Tindall; 2000.

3. Pender NJ, Murdaugh CL, Parsons MA. Health promotion in nursing practice 6th ed. Pearson Higher Ed; 2011.

4. _Alpar SE, Senturan L, Karabacak U, et al. Change in the health promoting lifestyle behaviour of Turkish University nursing students from beginning to end of nurse training. Nurse Educ Pract 2008;8(6):382–8.
[Crossref] [PubMed]
5. Vahedi H, Khosravi A, Sadeghi Z, et al. Health-Promoting Lifestyle in Patients with and without Diabetes in Iran. Health Scope 2017;6(2):e39428.

6. Wang D, Xing XH, Wu XB. Healthy lifestyles of university students in China and influential factors. ScientificWorldJournal 2013;2013:412950.
[Crossref] [PDF]
7. Haddad LG, Owies A, Mansour A. Wellness appraisal among adolescents in Jordan: a model from a developing country: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey. Health Promot Int 2009;24(2):130–9.
[Crossref] [PubMed] [PDF]
8. Rew L, Horner SD. Youth resilience framework for reducing health-risk behaviors in adolescents. J Pediatr Nurs 2003;18(6):379–88.
[Crossref] [PubMed]
9. Walker SN, Sechrist KR, Pender NJ. The health-promoting lifestyle profile: Development and psychometric characteristics. Nurs Res 1987;36(2):76–81.
[Crossref]
10. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control 1st ed. New York (NY): W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co; 1997.

11. Bandura A. Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness. Handbook of principles of organization behavior Oxford (UK): Blackwell; 2000.
[Crossref]
12. Geok SK, Yusof A, Lam SK, et al. Physical activity and health-promoting lifestyle of student nurses in Malaysia. J Biosci Med (Irvine) 2015;3(3):78–87.
[Crossref]
13. Burns KJ, Camaione DN, Chatterton CT. Prescription of physical activity by adult nurse practitioners: a national survey. Nurs Outlook 2000;48(1):28–33.
[Crossref] [PubMed]
14. Lobelo F, Duperly J, Frank E. Physical activity habits of doctors and medical students influence their counseling practices. Br J Sports Med 2009;43(2):89–92.
[Crossref] [PubMed]
15. Ozveren H, Cerit B, Ertop NG. Differences in health promoting lifestyle behavior of health management students based upon early diagnosis coverage in a cancer course. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2013;14(10):5769–73.
[Crossref] [PubMed] [PDF]
16. Rezaei-Adaryani M, Rezaei-Adaryani M. Health-promoting lifestyle of a group of Iranian medical, nursing and allied health students. J Clin Nurs 2012;21(23–24):3587–9.
[Crossref] [PubMed]
17. Hacihasanoglu R, Yildirim A, Karakurt P, et al. Healthy lifestyle behaviour in university students and influential factors in eastern Turkey. Int J Nurs Pract 2011;17(1):43–51.
[Crossref] [PubMed]
18. Guo J, Whittemore R, He GP. Factors that influence health quotient in Chinese college undergraduates. J Clin Nurs 2010;19(1–2):145–55.
[Crossref] [PubMed]
19. Can G, Ozdilli K, Erol O, et al. Comparison of the health-promoting lifestyles of nursing and non-nursing students in Istanbul, Turkey. Nurs Health Sci 2008;10(4):273–80.
[Crossref] [PubMed]
20. _Thanawat T, Nualnetr N, Eungpinichpong W. Health-promoting behaviors of physical therapy students in Khon Kaen University. J Med Tech Phy Ther 2009;21(3):268–76.

21. Al-Kandari F, Vidal VL, Thomas D. Health promoting lifestyle and body mass index among College of Nursing students in Kuwait: A correlational study. Nurs Health Sci 2008;10(1):43–50.
[Crossref] [PubMed]
22. _Lee RL, Loke AJ. Health-promoting behaviors and psychosocial well-being of university students in Hong Kong. Public Health Nurs 2005;22(3):209–20.
[Crossref] [PubMed]
23. Nassar OS, Shaheen AM. Health-promoting behaviours of university nursing students in Jordan. Health 2014;6(19):2756–63.
[Crossref]
24. Shaheen AM, Nassar OS, Amre HM, et al. Factors affecting health-promoting behaviors of university students in Jordan. Health 2015;7(1):1–8.
[Crossref]
25. Nacar M, Baykan Z, Cetinkaya F, et al. Health promoting lifestyle behaviour in medical students: a multicentre study from Turkey. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2014;15(20):8969–74.
[Crossref] [PubMed] [PDF]
26. Altun I. Effect of a health promotion course on health promoting behaviours of university students. East Mediterr Health J 2008;14(4):880–7.
[PubMed]
27. Maheri AB, Bahrami M-N, Sadeghi R. The situation of health-promoting lifestyle among the students living in dormitories of Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran. Health Dev J 2013;1(4):275–86.

28. Kaldi A, Kabiran EH, Mohagheghi KSH, et al. The evaluation of relationship between health-promoting lifestyle and quality of life (case of study: university of social welfare and rehabilitation sciences students in Tehran). J Iran Soc Dev Stud 2014;6(4):87–96.

29. Babanejad M, Rajabi A, Mohammadi S, et al. Investigation lifestyle and prediction of changes in its associated factors amongst health students. J Health 2013;4(2):147–55.

30. Mohammadi ZI, Pakpour HA, Mohammadi ZB. Reliability and validity of Persian version of the health-promoting lifestyle profile. J Mazandaran Univ Med Sci 2012;21(1):102–13.

31. Sherer M, Maddux JE, Mercandante B, et al. The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychol Rep 1982;51(2):663–71.
[Crossref]
32. Khosravi A, Mousavi SA, Chaman R, et al. Reliability and validity of the Persian version of the World Health Organization-five well-being index. Int J Health Stud 2015;1(1):17–9.

33. Farajpour A, Arshadi H, Homam M, et al. A Comparative Study of Self-efficacy and Self-esteem among Students of Islamic Azad University of Medical Sciences Mashhad Branch. Future Med Educ J 2014;4(1):17–21.

Table 1
Mean scores of lifestyle variables among the participants.
Variables Mean SD Minimum Maximum
Age (y) 21.79 2.68 18 39
Semester 4.27 2.45 1 12
Size of the family 2.68 0.86 1 4
Order of birth in the family 2.35 1.60 1 12
Spiritual growth 27.35 5.24 13 40
Health responsibility 34.05 6.97 14 56
Interpersonal relations 21.59 3.91 12 32
Stress management 11.73 2.64 5 20
Physical activity 14.10 4.95 7 28
Nutritional habits 18.65 4.14 8 32
Health-promoting lifestyle 127.47 19.78 76 208
Well-being 13.97 5.65 0 25
Self-efficacy 60.71 8.61 33 81
Willingness to initiate behavior 24.68 3.65 12 33
Willingness to expend effort 20.96 3.31 6 30
Persistence in the face of adversity 15.07 3 6 20
Table 2
Relationship between lifestyle variables with self-efficacy and general health.
Variables Self-efficacy (%) Well-being (%)

Low High X2 (p) Normal Abnormal X2 (p)
Gender
 Male 72 (35.1) 133 (64.9) 1.56 (0.24) 133 (64.9) 72 (35.1) 0.12 (0.73)
 Female 88 (29.8) 207 (70.2) 187 (63.4) 108 (36.6)

Status of the student
 Native to the city 41 (36.6) 71 (63.4) 1.41 (0.24) 72 (64.3) 40 (35.7) 0.05 (0.94)
 Non-native 119 (30.7) 269 (63.3) 248 (63.9) 140 (36.1)

Economic status ($)
 ≤ 50 10 (43.5) 13 (56.5) 4.85 (0.18) 9 (39.1) 14 (60.9) 7.27 (0.06)
 50–100 7 (30.4) 16 (69.6) 13 (56.5) 10 (43.5)
 100–150 20 (43.5) 26 (56.5) 30 (65.2) 16 (34.8)
 ≥ 150 123 (30.1) 285 (69.9) 268 (65.7) 140 (34.3)

Status of the parents
 Both live in the area 152 (32.2) 320 (67.8) 1.06 (0.589) 303 (64.2) 169 (35.8) 0.21 (0.90)
 Only father is alive 2 (18.2) 9 (81.8) 7 (63.6) 4 (36.4)
 Only mother is alive 6 (35.3) 11 (64.7) 10 (58.8) 7 (41.2)

Educational background
 1–2 semesters 41 (27.9) 106 (72.1) 1.62 (0.204) 94 (63.9) 53 (36.1) 0.0001 (0.99)
 ≥ 2 semesters 119 (33.7) 234 (66.3) 226 (64) 127 (36)

Well-being
 Normal 89 (27.8) 231 (72.2) 7.16 (0.007) - - -
 Non-normal 71 (39.4) 109 (60.6) - -

Self-efficacy
 Low - - - 89 (27.8) 231 (72.2) 7.16 (0.007)
 High - - 71 (39.4) 109 (60.6)

Place of residence
 City 142 (30.9) 317 (69.1) 2.91 (0.09) 293 (63.8) 166 (36.2) 0.07 (0.80)
 Village 18 (43.9) 23 (56.1) 27 (65.9) 14 (34.1)

Economic activity
 Yes 36 (37.5) 60 (62.5) 1.65 (0.20) 64 (66.7) 32 (33.3) 0.37 (0.55)
 No 124 (30.7) 340 (69.3) 256 (63.4) 148 (36.6)

Marital status
 Single 139 (31) 310 (69) 2.20 (0.14) 293 (65.3) 156 (34.7) 3.02 (0.08)
 Married 21 (41.2) 30 (58.8) 27 (52.9) 24 (47.1)

Educational level (program)
 Associate degree 20 (51.3) 19 (48.7) 9.66 (0.46) 25 (64.1) 14 (35.9) 8.33 (0.08)
 Bachelor’s 95 (32.1) 201 (67.9) 203 (68.6) 93 (31.4)
 Medical doctorate 38 (25.9) 109 (74.1) 82 (55.8) 65 (44.2)
 Master’s 6 (40) 9 (60) 9 (60) 6 (40)
 Ph.D. 1 (33.3) 2 (66.7) 1 (33.3) 2 (66.7)
Table 3
Comparison of mean scores of lifestyle variables in terms of self-efficacy and well-being categories.
Variables Self-efficacy Well-being
Low High t (p) Normal Non-normal t (p)
Age (y) 21.99 ± 2.9 21.69 ± 2.58 1.15 (0.249) 21.69 ± 2.49 21.96 ± 2.99 −1.10 (0.274)
Semester 4.14 ± 2.29 4.33 ± 2.53 −0.859 (0.391) 4.36 ± 2.53 4.11 ± 2.32 1.12 (0.273)
Well-being 12.68 ± 5.80 14.57 ± 5.48 −3.53 (0.001) - - -
Health-promoting lifestyle 125.20 ± 22.11 128.53 ± 18.53 −1.65 (0.10) 131.73 ± 19.57 119.89 ± 17.85 6.70 (0.001)
Spiritual growth 25.18 ± 5.14 28.37 ± 4.98 −6.62 (0.001) 28.67 ± 4.90 25.01 ± 5.02 7.96 (0.001)
Responsibility 33.78 ± 7.23 34.19 ± 6.85 −0.614 (0.540) 35.07 ± 6.97 32.26 ± 6.61 4.41 (0.001)
Interpersonal relations 20.68 ± 4.28 22.01 ± 3.66 −3.39 (0.001) 22.31 ± 3.84 20.30 ± 3.71 5.68 (0.001)
Stress management 11.91 ± 2.84 11.64 ± 2.53 0.995 (0.32) 12.13 ± 2.68 11.01 ± 2.39 4.66 (0.001)
Physical activity 14.85 ± 5.05 13.75 ± 4.87 2.33 (0.02) 14.48 ± 5.05 13.42 ± 4.72 2.31 (0.02)
Nutrition 18.81 ± 4.77 18.57 ± 3.82 0.548 (0.584) 19.07 ± 4.22 17.89 ± 3.90 3.07 (0.002)
Self-efficacy - - - 61.88 ± 8.46 58.62 ± 8.50 4.13 (0.001)
Data are presented as mean ± SD.
Table 4
Backward regression model for factors related to students’ lifestyle.
Variables Coefficient SE Standardized coefficient Z p
Age (y) 0.87 0.317 0.118 2.74 0.006
Gender −5.04 1.684 −0.125 −2.99 0.003
Educational level −2.73 1.261 −0.094 −2.17 0.031
Place of residence 3.10 1.166 0.112 2.66 0.008
Economic activity −3.73 2.179 −0.074 −1.71 0.087
Self-efficacy 0.29 0.095 0.128 3.09 0.002
Well-being 1.11 0.145 0.317 7.65 < 0.001