Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1 Department of Health Education and Promotion, School of Public Health, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences
2 Department of Health Education and Promotion, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran
Abstract
Background: Health promoting lifestyle (HPL) focuses on life promotion through lifestyle
which consists of six aspects of “physical activity”, “nutrition”, “health responsibility”, “spiritual
growth”, “interpersonal relations” and “stress management”. This lifestyle promotes health
and welfare and induces satisfaction, self-persuasion and self-improvement. Considering
the importance of the way a new behavior affects “life quality” as a motivational factor for
starting and continuing that behavior, this study aimed to determine the relationship between
health-promoting lifestyle and its aspects. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional
study was performed on undergraduate students at School of Health, Isfahan University of
Medical Sciences, using a census method. Health promoting lifestyle was measured by Health
Promotion Lifestyle Profile two and life quality was assessed by the Persian version of QLQ-C30
questionnaire. Data analysis was conducted using descriptive and inferential statistical tests
in SPSS. Results: Mean age of the participants was 21.12 years old. From among six aspects
of health promoting behaviors, spiritual growth and responsibility with the means of 22.01 ±
2.224 and 20 ± 2.31 had the highest and physical activity with the mean of 17.58 ± 2.9 had the
lowest scores, respectively. General life quality of 40.7% students was good and only 19.8% of
them had an average global life quality. The highest and lowest frequencies of health-related life
quality belonged to very good (58.6%) and excellent (9%) health, respectively. Except for stress
management (P = 0.05) and gender of the students, there were no significant relationships
between other HPL aspects and gender. There was no statistically significant relationship
between global life quality of students and nutrition, physical activity, self-health responsibility
and stress management while there was a significant relationship between global life quality
and spiritual growth of the students. Health-related life quality and stress management were
significantly related to each other; however, no statistically significant relationship was observed
between health-related life quality and nutrition, physical activity, interpersonal relations and
spiritual growth. Conclusion: There is a significant relationship between adopting health
promoting lifestyle and aspects of spiritual growth and stress management on the one hand
and general quality of life on the other, at least among students.
Keywords
Co; 2002. p. 65.
2. Darby S, Crump A. Older people nursing. Oxford: W.B. Planta tree;
1999. p. 4.
3. Phipps WJ, Sands JK. Medical surgical nursing & clinical practice.
New York: Mosby Co; 2003. p. 55-227.
4. Hackett TP, Cassem NH. Factors contributing to delay in responding
to the signs and symptoms of acute myocardial infarction. Am J
Cardiol 1969;24:651-8.
5. Potter PA, Perry AG. Fundamental of nursing. London: W.B. Mosby
Co; 2001. p. 11.
6. Moher M. Evidence of the effectiveness of intervention for
secondary prevention and treatment of coronary heart disease in
primary care. St. Louis: W.B. Milton Keynes; 2001. p. 228.
7. Seyed Nozadi M. Epidemiology principals. Tehran: Vaghefi
Publication; 2002. p. 12-23.
8. Phipps C. Fundamental of nursing. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 2001.
p. 50-2.
9. Delaun SC, Ladner PK. Fundamental of nursing standard and
practice. Albany: Delmar; 1998. p. 75.
10. Montgomery J. Health care low. New York: Oxford University Press;
1997. p. 75.
11. Park J. Health services principals. In: Tehrani S, editor. Samat
Publication;Tehran, Iran. 2004. p. 42.
12. Black J, Hawk JH, Keene AM. Medical surgical of nursing.
Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 2001. p. 5223.
13. Tashiro J. Exploring health promoting lifestyle behaviors of
Japanese college woman: Perception, practices, and issues. Health
Care Women Int 2002;23:59-70.
14. Covinsky KE. Health status versus quality of life in older patients:
Dose the distinction matter? Am J Med 2000;106:435-46.
15. Poladfar R, Ahmadi SA. Relation between life style and psychological
disorder among teachers in Isfahan. 2005;2:7-18.
16. Samimi R, Masror D, Hossaini F, Tamadonfar M. Relation between
life style with general health among university students. Iranian
Nursing J 2005;19:83-93.
17. Salyer J, Flattery MP. Life style and quality of life in long-term cardiac
transplant recipients. J Heart Lung Transplant 2002;22:309-21.
18. Plank CL. Determination of health- promotive behavior. A review
of current research. Nurs Clin North Am 2007;26:815-32.
19. Dunn HL. High level wellness. Throfare, NJ: Charles B. Slack; 2001.
20. Walker SN, Kerr MJ, Pender NJ, Sechrist KR. A Spanish language
version of the health promoting lifestyle profile. Nurs Res
2001;268- 73.
21. Newell-Withrow C. Identifying health- seeking behavior: A study of
adolescents. Adolescence 2000;27:641-58.
22. Larouche R. Determinants of college students’ health- promoting
lifestyle. Clin Excell Nurse Pract 2004;2:35-44.
23. Cohen S, Syme SL. Social support & health. New York: Academic
Press; 2003. p. 61-82,161-75.
24. Lomas J. Social capital & health: Implication for public health and
epidemiology. Soc Sci Med 2004;49:1181-8.
25. Oh H. Health promoting behavior and quality of life of Korean
woman with Arthritis. Unpublished Dissertation. Auotin, TX:
University of Texas at Austin; 1997.
26. Stumberger AK, Serapine A, Robert G. An explatory model of health
promotion and quality of life in chronic disabling condition. Nurs
Res 2000;49:122-9.
27. Clark CC. Wellness self-care by healthy older adults. Image J Nurs
Sch 2005;30:351-5.
28. Ardell DB. The nature and implication of high level wellness or why
“normal health” is a rather sorry state of existence. Health values:
Achieving high level wellness. Health Promotion 2000;3:17-24.
)