No abstract

OBJECTIVES:Smoking is an important public health issue in Turkey. This study set out to investigate the smoking prevalence among first and fourth grade university students as well as the associated socio-demographic variables. MATERIAL AND METHODS:A survey was carried out by the International Children's Centre (ICC) in the faculties of Science and Literature, Education and Medicine of nine Turkish Universities to determine the knowledge and life styles of the 1st and 4th grade university students in adolescence (2009). A total of 5.221 students were evaluated. Data were analysed using SPPS 16.0-9907290 statistical package program. RESULTS:The first grade students with illiterate mothers (23.0%), those who were living alone at home (37.7%) and those who considered receiving inadequate pocket money (24.9%) had a higher level of smoking prevalence (p<0.05). The fourth grade students with illiterate mothers (34.9%), those who were living with their friends (34.0%), those who perceived their economic situation bad (37.7%) and those who considered receiving inadequate pocket money (36.3%) had a higher level of smoking prevalence (p<0.05). CONCLUSION:A relationship between smoking habits of university students and some socio-demographic characteristics was found. We believe that more priority should be given to health promotion interventions among university students, especially among those of low socioeconomic status. On the other hand, in order to monitor the efficacy of smoking-related interventions among young people, there is a need for early detection of young individuals who are at risk and urgent interventions should be carried out.KEY WORDS: University students, smoking, sociodemographic characteristics INTRODUCTIONThe World Health Organization defines adolescence as the period between 10 and 19 years and youth as the period between 15 and 24 years [1]. Adolescence is a specific process with the highest rate of growth and development of an individual and it is the transition from childhood to adulthood. This process is a period including physical and sexual growth and development accompanied by numerous social changes. Quest for identity and effort to gain acceptance are experienced intensively in adolescence [2][3][4]. It is expected that the changes occurring in adolescence would be completed and the plans for the future would be developed in youth. Numerous behaviours that determine the life style are also gained in youth. Whilst some of these behaviours are positive, some of them negatively influence the health. Accidents, suicide, sexually transmitted infections, violence and substance abuse that are brought along with behavioural problems negatively influence health in youth. Behaviours acquired from family, as well as the effects of the social environment and friends, have a role in forming these behaviours [5].Studies demonstrate that the majority of smokers in many countries begin smoking before the age of 18 years [6,7]. According to the 2008 data of the World Health Organization, approximately one f...

IntroductionThe Health Belief Model (HBM) can be used as a guide in enhancing the peoples’ awareness, improving the motivation, and providing tools that address beliefs and attitudes toward general disaster preparedness (GDP).MethodsThe aim of this study was to improve and re-test all psychometric properties of the published General Disaster Preparedness Belief (GDPB) scale based on HBM carried out in the general population. This scale development study measured by 58 items was prepared under the same structure of the developed GDPB scale that measured 31 items before. This expanded scale was applied to 973 individuals. Firstly, the data from application of the expanded scale was examined under Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). Then, the estimations obtained from Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for the expanded scale with 45 items were compared with the estimations obtained from the previous scale with 31 items.ResultsThe EFA lead to the removal of 13 items and the retention of 45 items. The items which the factor loadings were below 0.30 and which gave the factor loadings for more dimension were excluded from the data set. A model measured six dimensions with 45 items was hypothesized: six items under perceived susceptibility, four items under perceived severity, six items under perceived benefits, 14 items under perceived barriers, five items under cues to action, and 10 items under self-efficacy. For CFA results, all estimations for factor loadings were significant. The scale with 45 items obtained in this study fit because Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), and Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) were over 0.95.ConclusionThese results suggest that the scale with 45 items shows improvement in the scale with 31 items. This study indicates that the GDPB scale with 45 items based on HBM has acceptable validity and reliability. This tool can be used in disaster preparedness surveys.InalE,DoganN.Improvement of General Disaster Preparedness Belief scale based on Health Belief Model.Prehosp Disaster Med.2018;33(6):627–636.

Aim: This study aimed to identify sociodemographic and disaster related factors associated with General Disaster Preparedness Belief using the Health Belief Model as a theoretical framework. Methods: The survey study was conducted in Yalova, Turkey between April and July, 2014. A prevalidated General Disaster Preparedness Belief scale instrument based on the Health Belief Model was administered to a study group of 286 academic and administrative staff. The General Disaster Preparedness Belief score was computed by summing up the six Health Belief Model subscales. Hierarchical linear regression was used to test for association between the General Disaster Preparedness Belief score and its associated factors. Results: The General Disaster Preparedness Belief score was positively associated with; higher monthly income, higher occupational status, having experienced any disaster previously and having any emergency/disaster education. Respondents who had any emergency/disaster education had on average an 19.05 higher General Disaster Preparedness Belief score as compared to respondents who had no emergency/disaster education (β=19.05±4.83, p<0.001). Furthermore, participants who had experienced any disaster had on average 21.615 higher GDPB score as compared to participants who had never experienced any disaster (β =21.62±0.32, p<0.001). Conclusions: Monthly income, occupational status, previous experiences of disasters and access to emergency/disaster education were important factors associated with General Disaster Preparedness Belief. Interventions aimed at increasing general disaster preparedness should include provision of disaster education and should target individuals with lower socioeconomic status as a priority.

No abstract