Influence of Personal Factors on Health-Promoting Behavior in College Students: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach

Figures & data

Figure 1 Preliminary MET of personal factors related to health-promoting behavior in university students.

Notes: The rectangles and ovals indicate observed and latent variables, respectively; arrows connecting the circles represent the relationships between the variables (regression coefficients); the arrows between the circles and rectangles indicate the reliability of the indicators (factor loadings).

Table 1 Distribution of Personal Characteristics of College Students (n = 763)

Personal Characteristics	Frequency (n)	Percentage (%)
Biological
Sex
Female	602	78.9
Male		21.1
Age (years)
≤21	455	59.6
22–24		21.1
25–27	81	10.6
28–30		4.5
≥31		4.2
Body mass index
Low weight (<18.5)		5.2
Normal (18.5–24.9)	413	56.7
Overweight (25–29.9)	219	30.0
Obesity grade 1 (30–34.9)		6.4
Obesity grade 2(35–39.9)	5	0.7
Obesity grade 3 (>40)		1.0
Aerobic capacity
Good	329	43.1
Regular	341	44.7
Deficient		12.2
Strength, agility, and balance
Good	379	49.7
Regular	329	43.1
Deficient		7.2
Psychological
Self-esteem
Low	253	33.2
Medium	373	48.9
High		17.9
Perceived health status
Excellent		20.6
Very good	249	32.6
Good	279	36.6
Regular		9.4
Poor		0.8
Sociocultural
Ethnicity
White		23.7
Mestizo	428	56.1
Black	115	15.1
Mulatto		2.2
Indigenous		2.5
Raizal		0.3
Palenquero	1	0.1
Program
Prehospital care		0.3
Nursing		38.8
Physiotherapy		7.2
Speech therapy		2.3
Surgical instrumentation		18.1
Dental mechanics	1	0.1
Medicine		29.0
Dentistry		1.7
Psychology		2.1
Pharmacy registry	1	0.1
Respiratory therapy		0.3
Semester
≤ 3	310	40.6
4–6	170	22.3
7–9	229	30.0
≥ 10		7.1

Table 2 Total and Subscale Mean Scores of the Health-Promoting Behavior Lifestyle Profile of University Students (n = 763)

Descriptive	SG	IR	HR	N	PA	SM	HPLP-II
Mean	27.7	25.9	22.6	21.6	18.2	18.9	134.4
Standard deviation	4.9	4.7	5.3	4.3	6.0	4.2	23.3
Minimum							52
Maximum
Scale range	9–36	9–36	9–36	9–36	8–32	8–32	52–208

Note: *Lowest and highest values that can be obtained in the original scale.

Abbreviations: SG, spiritual growth; IR, interpersonal relationships; HR, responsibility toward health; N, nutrition; PA, physical activity; SM, stress management.

Table 3 Goodness-of-Fit Indicators of the SEM Model for Personal Factors and Health-Promoting Behavior in University Students

Indicator	Value
Normed fit index (NFI)	0,85
Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI)	0.99
Root Mean Square Residual Approximation (RMSEA)	0.08
Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR)	0.05

Table 4 SEM Results

Latent Variable	Indicator	Factorial Loading	Standard Error	P
Personal biological factors	Sex	0.138	0.017	0.001
	Body mass index	0.113	0.035	0.012
	Aerobic capacity	0.823	0.033	0.000
	Strength, agility, and balance	0.699	0.027	0.000
Personal sociocultural factors	Self-esteem	0.121	0.033	0.012
	Perceived health status	−0.851	0.199	0.000
Factores personales socioculturales	Ethnicity	0.336	0.095	0.002
	Socioeconomic	−0.451	0.139	0.001
	Academic program	−0.223	0.188	0.003
Health-promoting behavior	Physical activity	0.688	0.272	0.000
	Spiritual growth	0.869	0.262	0.000
	Stress management	0.816	0.231	0.000
	Nutrition	0.664	0.214	0.000
	Interpersonal relationships	0.733	0.240	0.000
	Responsibility for health	0.736	0.268	0.000

Figure 2 Structural model with personal factors related to health promoting behavior in university students.

Notes: Dashed lines with double arrows indicate covariance between the variables.

Abbreviation: ns, not significant.