Lifestyle choices of Brazilian college students

Abstract

Background Lifestyle choices reflect the beliefs that individuals attribute to aspects of life. This construct can be assessed with the Individual Lifestyle Profile (PEVI) questionnaire, which measures elements of Nutrition, Physical Activity, Preventive Behaviors, Social Relationships and Stress Management. Objective The objective of this study was to estimate the psychometric properties of the PEVI applied to a sample of Brazilian university students, identifying the prevalence of each lifestyle component according to participants’ age, sex, weight status, course area/field and economic stratum and to estimate the contribution of these characteristics on physical and psychological lifestyle. Methods The PEVI data was analyzed by confirmatory factor analysis, using the indexes chi-square per degrees of freedom ratio (χ2/df), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). First-order and second-order models (physical and psychological lifestyle) were tested. Prevalences of lifestyle components were calculated and compared by participants’ age, sex, weight status, course area/field and economic stratum. A hypothetical causal structural model was elaborated to investigate the impact of sample characteristics on physical and psychological lifestyles. This model was evaluated considering the global fit to the data (χ2/df, CFI, TLI and RMSEA) and the hypothetical causal trajectories (β) (α = 5%). Results A sample of 1,303 students was used. The mean age was 20.9 (standard deviation = 2.8) years, 66.8% of participants were females, 63.4% had weights in the normal range and 73.7% were students of the social and exact sciences. The PEVI data showed an adequate fit for both the first- (χ2/df = 2.03, CFI = 0.98; TLI = 0.97; RMSEA = 0.04) and second-order (χ2/df = 2.25; CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.97; RMSEA = 0.04) models. There was a higher prevalence of unfavorable physical and psychological lifestyle choices among females, among underweight and obese individuals, in older students and in those with lower economic strata. Moreover, negative behaviors in physical lifestyle were more prevalent in students from human/social/exact sciences and worse psychological lifestyle was observed among health sciences students. These results were confirmed by a structural model. Conclusion The PEVI data presented validity and reliability. Negative lifestyle choices had high prevalence among students. Moreover, individual characteristics had different impact on physical and psychological lifestyle choices.

The relationship of dental students’ characteristics to social support, psychosocial factors, lifestyle, and quality of life

“…Student’s lifestyle was assessed through the Individual Lifestyle Profile (ILP) scale (Martins, Marôco, Barros, & Campos, 2020 ). The instrument involves five components: nutrition, physical activity, preventive behaviour, social relationships, and stress control (Martins et al, 2020 ).…”

“…Student’s lifestyle was assessed through the Individual Lifestyle Profile (ILP) scale (Martins, Marôco, Barros, & Campos, 2020 ). The instrument involves five components: nutrition, physical activity, preventive behaviour, social relationships, and stress control (Martins et al, 2020 ). The scale consists of 15 items answered on a four-point Likert scale: ‘0 = absolutely not’, ‘1 = sometimes’, ‘2 = often’, and ‘3 = always’.…”

“…Quality of life was assessed using the Life of the Health Student and Health Resident questionnaire (VERAS-Q). The scale was originally developed and validated to assess the quality of life of medical students with the internal consistency of 0.78 (Martins et al, 2020 ). The 45 items of the VERAS-Q include conceptual aspects and determinants of quality of life of health sciences students.…”

Lifestyle factors influencing medical and nursing student's health status at the rural health-care institute

“…In later stages of life, it is difficult to change the behavior. [ 8 9 ] The youth represent a large proportion of the population. A part of the youth take up the challenge to dedicate themselves as health providers.…”

Health-Promoting Behavior and Lifestyle Characteristics of Students as a Function of Sex and Academic Level

“…Such circumstances are more challenging for younger freshmen and sophomores who are less experienced with the healthcare system and the health-promotion resources in their environment [ 2 ]. Hence, the university period is frequently accompanied by new unhealthy practices and routines that could impact students’ health and lifestyles into adulthood, which is crucial as behavioral modifications are more difficult to implement in later life [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]. For instance, most students with sufficient physical activity (PA) levels at college were sufficiently physically active six years after graduation, while most students with insufficient PA levels remained inactive [ 5 ].…”