SUMMARYOur objectives in this cross-sectional descriptive study were to analyze to what extent freshmen exhibit healthy behaviors, which socio-demographic variables predict healthy or unhealthy lifestyle, and what is the strength of the relationship. Three hundred seven Mexican University students were assessed. t-Test and adjusted multiple regression analysis were computed. Life style was measured by use of the HPLP-II questionnaire and socio-demographics data. The results showed that most students presented a non-healthy lifestyle profile. Overall, the health behavior score was predicted by sex, mother's education and socio-economic level (R 2 ¼ 0.104; p ¼ 0.00001). When controlling for the other variables, nutrition was partially predicted by mother's education (R 2 ¼ 0.048; p ¼ 0.001); physical activity and stress management were modulated by sex, marital status and mother's education (R 2 ¼ 0.111, p , 0.0001; R 2 ¼ 0.096; p ¼ 0.0001, respectively); interpersonal relations were predicted by mother's education and socio-economic level (R 2 ¼ 0.104; p , 0.0001). These influences should be taken into account in designing interventions for specific socio-demographic profiles that might be at higher risk for certain behaviors.

The Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile II (HPLPII) has been psychometrically validated across several linguistic and cultural groups; however the Spanish version has not been psychometrically tested for the Spanish population. The purpose of this research was to evaluate the reliability and factor structure of the Spanish version of the HPLPII for Spanish people. Principal component analysis (PCA) revealed that a six-component model for 44 items accounted for 40% of the variance, and the scale had an internal consistency of .87. Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that a better fit of the six-component structure emerged from the PCA than from the model proposed in the original version of the HPLPII, suggesting that the health-promoting lifestyle might be sensitive to context and culture.

This interaction indicated that lifestyle differed in the intervention and control groups across the measurements at different times. Students attending the intervention presented a healthier lifestyle than did students in the control group. These results offer interesting experimental evidence to establish guidelines for the design of healthier universities.

No abstract