الفهرس 
List of TablesOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 208 |  |  |
| | | from | 208 | | |
Abstract
Summary
Health-promoting lifestyle (HPL) is a multidisciplinary pattern of self-initiated perceptions and activities that aim to maintain and improve an individual’s health. HPL can reduce the occurrence of disease, lower the death rate, and contribute to better health.
On the other hand, unhealthy behaviors are acts that raise the chance of injury and disease in general. For example, cigarette and alcohol use, an unhealthy diet, and a lack of exercise all lead to a variety of chronic diseases. Furthermore, bad behavior and lifestyle are two main variables linked to the ten leading causes of death.
Though healthy lifestyle behaviors are crucial for individuals at all stages of life, they are especially important throughout adolescence. Emerging adulthood is a critical age for the development of health behaviors associated with an increased risk of chronic disease. Unhealthy practices and behaviors developed at an early age may resonate across a lifetime, resulting in higher health risks later in life. So, a distinct developmental stage may be an optimal moment for the effective dissemination of preventative health information.
The aim of the current study was to assess health-promoting lifestyle behaviors among Sohag University students and identify socio-demographic determinants of the health promoting lifestyle behaviors.
The current cross sectional study was conducted among 410 university students of the academic year (2022-2023) at Sohag University using a self-administered questionnaire consisting of two parts (socio-demographic characteristics and the Health Promoting Lifestyle Profile Ⅱ questionnaire).
The main findings of the current study were summarized as follows
Regarding the socio-demographic characteristics of the studied students, the mean age of students was (20.26 ± 1.38) years, 53.9% of students were males, and majority of students were single (96.6%). According to field of study, they were randomly chosen from four faculties (Faculty of Science, faculty of Nursing, faculty of Education, and faculty of Arts), and the representative percentage of each faculty was (24.4%, 24.4%, 25.6%, and 25.6%) respectively. As regards the grade of university, the percentage was (24.6%) for the first grade, (25.1%) for the second grade, (25.9%) for the third grade, and (24.4%) for the fourth grade.According to residence, (52.2%) of students were from urban areas, and (75.1%) of them live with their families.
According to the physical assessment of the studied students, (2.7%) of them were underweight, (49.8%) were normal weight, (35.5%) were overweight and (12%) were obese.
According to the medical history of the studied students and their families, only (14.9%) of students reported that they checked up regularly.
As regards the total scores of the students at HPLP Ⅱ, the mean score was (132.86 ± 20.41) which is considered a good score. As regards the domains of the health-promoting lifestyle profile, the nutrition domain had the highest mean score, followed by that of the spiritual growth domain (25.75 ± 4.95 and 24.93 ± 5.46), respectively. It was lower for interpersonal relationships and health responsibility domains (24.1 ± 4.62 and 22.16 ± 4.81), respectively. The lowest mean scores were for the stress management and physical activity domains (20.5 ± 4.28 and 18.57 ± 4.73), respectively.
We divided grades of HPLP Ⅱ scores into two levels: either poor to moderate grade or good to excellent grade. There was no statistically significant difference between grades of HPLP Ⅱ score according to age, gender, and marital status. On the other hand, a statistically significant difference between grades of HPLP Ⅱ scores was found according to field of study. Among students at the faculty of Science, the faculty of Nursing and the faculty of Education, the higher percentages were for students who had a good to excellent grade of HPLP Ⅱ scores (53%, 69% and 57.1%), respectively while among students of the faculty of Arts, the higher percentage was for students who scored a poor to moderate grade of HPLP Ⅱ score (61.9%).
Also, there was a statistically significant difference between the mean score of the total HPLP II and field of study of the studied students. Students of faculty of Nursing had the highest mean total HPLP Ⅱ scores followed by that of the faculty of Education then that of the faculty of Science and lowest score was for students of the faculty of Arts (140.61 ± 13.89, 134.76 ± 20.62, 130.73 ± 21.83 and 125.62 ± 21.38) respectively.
According to grade of university, among students of first and fourth grades, it was found that, the higher percentages were for students who had poor to moderate grades of HPLP Ⅱ score (52.5% and 54%), while among students of second and third grades, higher percentages were for students who scored good to excellent grades of HPLP Ⅱ score (68.9% and 53.8%).
There was a statistically significant difference between the mean score of total HPLP II and the grade of the university. Students of the second grade of the university had the highest mean of total HPLP Ⅱ score (139.04 ± 20.33) followed by students of the third grade of the university (132.04 ± 20.55) then students of the fourth grade of university (130.37 ± 20.74), and the lowest mean of total HPLP Ⅱ score was for students of the first grade of the university (129.88 ± 18.9).
According to the BMI classification of the studied students, among those who were underweight, normal weight, and overweight, the higher percentages were for students who had a good to excellent grade of HPLP Ⅱ score (50.5%, 57.1%, and 58.9%), respectively while among obese students, the higher percentage was for those who had a poor to moderate HPLP Ⅱ score (54.5%).
There was a statistically significant difference between grades of HPLP Ⅱ scores according to regularity of check-up. Among students who reported that they checked regularly, more than of two-thirds of students (68.9%) had a good to excellent HPLP Ⅱ score.
Moreover, there was a statistically significant difference between the score of HPLP Ⅱ according to students’ perceptions of their health situation. The highest mean score was for students who had very good perception (137.86 ± 23.04) followed by those who had good perception (134.46 ± 19.69) then those who had moderate perception (130.62 ± 19.58) and the lowest mean score was for students who had poor perception (117.05 ± 14.27).
Conclusions
The current cross-sectional study was conducted among 410 university students of the academic year (2022-2023) at Sohag University from four randomly selected faculties to assess the health promoting lifestyle behaviors among Sohag University students and identify socio-demographic determinants of the health-promoting lifestyle behaviors.
The result of the study showed that university students had reasonably good orientations towards health behaviors.
As illustrated by the current study, the mean score of HPLP was (132.86 ± 20.41) and ranged between (78 – 178) which is considered a good score. As regard the grades of HPLP score, only (3.9%) of students had an excellent score; the majority of students scored either good or moderate score (50.2 % and 44.4 %) respectively; and (1.5%) of students had a poor score.
Comparing students’ scores in different domains showed that the score in the nutrition domain had the highest mean, followed by the score in the spiritual growth domain. It was lower in the score of interpersonal relationships and health responsibility domains. However, the lowest mean scores were for the stress management and physical activity domains.
According to predictors of grades of HPLP Ⅱ score, there was a significant association between studying at the faculty of Arts and being at second grade of university and the grades of HPLPⅡ score of the studied university students with odds ratio (1.94) and (0.33) respectively. Also, there was a significant association between the weight (90-110) kg and regular checkup, and the grades of HPLPⅡ score of the studied university students with odds ratio (0.02 and 0.46).In addition to the presence of a significant association between moderate, good, and very good grades of perception of health situation and grades of HPLP score of the studied university students with odd ratio (0.22, 0.19 and 0.19), respectively (P-value <0.05).
Recommendations
Based on the results of the current study, it is recommended that:
• Health promotion and improvement courses must be incorporated in all academic departments’ curricula.
• At regular intervals, educational programs and workshops on health-promoting behaviours should be held for university students.
• Health promotion strategy to encourage students to engage in regular physical activity, proper nutrition, and stress management.
• The university should develop a positive environment that encourages, supports, and reinforces the adoption of healthy related behaviors, such as healthy dietary programs, healthy food choices in faculty campus, sport facilities to ensure a high level of physical activity, more flexible schedule and apply a faculty tobacco-free policy
• Establishment of health promoting or wellness clinic to the students, including program for regular medical checkup.
• Establishment of a youth care committee to assist and advise students who have endured stress during their studies.
• Increase the awareness of parents regarding health risk-taking behaviors and the importance of health-promoting behaviors during the university period through mass media.
• Conducting a larger-scale study on health behaviours and factors influencing health behaviours.
• Modify the overloaded curricula and ensure commitment to the intended learning objectives (ILOs) that aid in learning outcome achievement.
• Conduct regular screening programmes among university students to discover probable mental health disorders or chronic diseases early in order to lower the risk of mental health disorders and chronic diseases and treat them most effectively.