Volume 15, Issue 1 (2-2018)
J Res Dev Nurs Midw 2018, 15(1): 45-52 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Pasha A, Pakseresht S, Rezaie K, Rezaie S, KazemNejad E. Comparison of Health Promoting Lifestyle in Guilan Medical and Non-Medical Sciences Students. J Res Dev Nurs Midw 2018; 15 (1) :45-52
URL: http://nmj.goums.ac.ir/article-1-1020-en.html
URL: http://nmj.goums.ac.ir/article-1-1020-en.html
1- Master of Health Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery
2- Associate Professor of Women Health Promotion/Community Health, Social Determinants of Health Research Center (SDHRC) , paksersht@yahoo.com
3- Master of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery
4- Associate Professor of Biostatistics
2- Associate Professor of Women Health Promotion/Community Health, Social Determinants of Health Research Center (SDHRC) , paksersht@yahoo.com
3- Master of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery
4- Associate Professor of Biostatistics
Abstract: (14128 Views)
Background: Since health-promoting lifestyle is an important determinant of health status, this study aimed to compare the health-promoting lifestyle in medical and non-medical students of Guilan, Iran.
Methods: This is a cross-sectional study with a descriptive-analytical approach that was performed on 1319 students of medical sciences and non-medical sciences in Guilan, 2014. The data collection tool was 52-item HPLP Π in six dimensions (health responsibility, physical activity, nutritional habits, stress management, spiritual growth, and interpersonal relationships). Data was analyzed using one-way ANOVA, T-test, and Kruskal–Wallis test.
Results: The mean health-promoting lifestyle among students of Guilan University and Guilan University of Medical Sciences was (129.5± 7.17) and (128.1± 19), respectively. There was a significant difference between the two studied population in terms of health responsibility (p= 0.0001). Students of medical sciences had 3.2 times more favorable health promoting lifestyle (OR = 3.123, 95% CI = 1.57-6.3), married students 6.1 times (OR= 1.55, 95% CI = 1.05-2.32), students with mothers with under diploma degree 2.6 times (OR= 2.6 95% CI = 1.49-4.62), students with fathers with diploma 1.7 times (OR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.2-2.56), and physical education and sports science students 5.8 times (OR = 8.5, 95% CI = 3.42- 20.95) had a more optimal health promoting lifestyle.
Conclusion: In the present study, students' health-promoting lifestyles are in an unfavorable condition. Since the students in the future will be responsible for managing different sectors of the country and will play a role in changing the other health-promoting behavior of other strata of the society, it is important to consider their health-promoting lifestyles by providing facilities and eliminating the shortcomings.
Keywords: lifestyle, health-promoting, students
Methods: This is a cross-sectional study with a descriptive-analytical approach that was performed on 1319 students of medical sciences and non-medical sciences in Guilan, 2014. The data collection tool was 52-item HPLP Π in six dimensions (health responsibility, physical activity, nutritional habits, stress management, spiritual growth, and interpersonal relationships). Data was analyzed using one-way ANOVA, T-test, and Kruskal–Wallis test.
Results: The mean health-promoting lifestyle among students of Guilan University and Guilan University of Medical Sciences was (129.5± 7.17) and (128.1± 19), respectively. There was a significant difference between the two studied population in terms of health responsibility (p= 0.0001). Students of medical sciences had 3.2 times more favorable health promoting lifestyle (OR = 3.123, 95% CI = 1.57-6.3), married students 6.1 times (OR= 1.55, 95% CI = 1.05-2.32), students with mothers with under diploma degree 2.6 times (OR= 2.6 95% CI = 1.49-4.62), students with fathers with diploma 1.7 times (OR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.2-2.56), and physical education and sports science students 5.8 times (OR = 8.5, 95% CI = 3.42- 20.95) had a more optimal health promoting lifestyle.
Conclusion: In the present study, students' health-promoting lifestyles are in an unfavorable condition. Since the students in the future will be responsible for managing different sectors of the country and will play a role in changing the other health-promoting behavior of other strata of the society, it is important to consider their health-promoting lifestyles by providing facilities and eliminating the shortcomings.
Keywords: lifestyle, health-promoting, students
Type of Study: Original Article |
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
