Skip to main content

Table 7 Associations between health status and health-promoting lifestyle

From: Do socio-cultural factors influence college students’ self-rated health status and health-promoting lifestyles? A cross-sectional multicenter study in Dalian, China

Health promoting life profile

Healthy

SHS

 

95% Confidence Interval

 
 

N

N

OR*

Lower Limit

Upper Limit

P

Overall Evaluation

 Poor (13)

12

1

0.591

0.066

5.332

0.640

 Moderate (296)

176

120

4.508

2.034

9.990

0.000

 Good (456)

303

153

3.282

1.500

7.180

0.003

 Excellent Refa (64)

56

8

   

0.000

Health Responsibility

 Poor (72)

38

34

6.55

0.683

62.884

0.100

 Moderate (481)

320

161

3.89

0.432

35.066

0.220

 Good (253)

167

86

5.29

0.597

46.866

0.130

 Excellent Refa(23)

22

1

   

0.080

Spiritual Growth

 Poor (14)

13

1

0.33

0.035

3.214

0.340

 Moderate (160)

81

79

3.92

1.797

8.557

0.000

 Good(531)

352

179

1.61

0.845

3.079

0.150

 Excellent Refa (124)

101

23

   

0.000

Physical Activity

 Poor (46)

29

17

2.09

0.402

10.821

0.380

 Moderate (451)

272

179

2.5

0.573

10.933

0.220

 Good (302)

219

83

1.36

0.321

5.794

0.670

 Excellent refa (30)

27

3

   

0.020

Nutrition

 Poor (16)

15

1

0.03

0.003

0.391

0.010

 Moderate (295)

198

97

0.25

0.109

0.583

0.000

 Good (445)

283

162

0.41

0.192

0.882

0.020

 Excellent refa (73)

51

22

   

0.002

Interpersonal Relations

 Poor (8)

7

1

9.47

0.374

23.798

0.170

 Moderate(185)

115

70

2.7

1.100

6.659

0.030

 Good (543)

342

201

3.01

1.389

6.515

0.010

 Excellent Refa (93)

82

11

   

0.040

 Stress Management

      

 Poor (10)

9

1

0.51

0.580

3.364

0.64

 Moderate(260)

162

98

1.4

0.623

2.988

0.46

 Good (478)

310

168

1.36

0.931

1.075

0.44

 Excellent Ref a(81)

66

15

   

0.764

  1. aDemographic variables adjusted for included age, gender, BMI, education level, drinking, Smoking, Financial Status
  2. Refa is the reference group