| Literature DB >> 20616992 |
Walid El Ansari1, Susanne Vodder Clausen, Andi Mabhala, Christiane Stock.
Abstract
This study examined differences in body image perception between university students in two European countries, United Kingdom and Denmark. A total of 816 British and 548 Danish university students participated in a cross-sectional survey. A self-administered questionnaire assessed socio-demographic information, body image perception (as "too thin", "just right" or "too fat"), and the association of related factors with body image perception (nutrition behaviour, social support, perceived stressors and quality of life). The proportions of students who perceived themselves as "too thin", "just right", or "too fat" were 8.6%, 37.7%, and 53.7% respectively. Multi-factorial logistic regression analysis showed that students who perceived themselves as "too fat" were more likely to be from the British university, to be females, to be older than 30 years, to report stress due to their financial situation and were less likely to have a high quality of life. The findings highlight the need for interventions with focus on healthy food choices whilst acknowledging financial stressors and quality of life.Entities:
Keywords: body image perception; gender; nutrition; quality of life; student health
Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20616992 PMCID: PMC2872285 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph7020583
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Nutrition and lifestyle characteristics of British and Danish students.
| n | % | n | % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <0.001 | |||||
| Female | 626 | 76.7 | 267 | 48.7 | |
| Male | 239 | 23.3 | 281 | 51.3 | |
| <0.001 | |||||
| <20 | 241 | 27.8 | 29 | 5.3 | |
| 20–24 | 243 | 28.1 | 400 | 73.0 | |
| 25–29 | 78 | 9.0 | 70 | 12.8 | |
| ≥30 | 304 | 35.1 | 49 | 8.9 | |
| Studies in general | 408 | 49.0 | 245 | 45.5 | 0.201 |
| Housing | 93 | 11.2 | 54 | 9.9 | 0.463 |
| Financial situation | 354 | 42.8 | 181 | 33.2 | <0.001 |
| Workload in addition to studying | 415 | 49.2 | 80 | 15.0 | <0.001 |
| High calorie diet score | <0.001 | ||||
| Low (1st tertile) | 354 | 45.6 | 92 | 17.0 | |
| Medium (2nd tertile) | 243 | 31.3 | 233 | 42.9 | |
| High (3rd tertile) | 180 | 23.2 | 217 | 40.1 | |
| Healthy diet score | <0.001 | ||||
| Low (1st tertile) | 236 | 30.3 | 278 | 51.1 | |
| Medium (2nd tertile) | 213 | 27.3 | 136 | 25.0 | |
| High (3rd tertile) | 331 | 42.4 | 130 | 23.9 | |
| 0.007 | |||||
| Low | 55 | 6.5 | 52 | 9.9 | |
| Medium | 243 | 28.9 | 119 | 22.7 | |
| High | 542 | 64.5 | 354 | 67.4 | |
| 0.587 | |||||
| Low (<3 persons) | 284 | 33.7 | 174 | 32.3 | |
| High (≥3 persons) | 559 | 66.3 | 365 | 67.7 | |
| <0.001 | |||||
| Low | 75 | 8.9 | 31 | 5.7 | |
| Medium | 473 | 56.4 | 214 | 39.6 | |
| High | 290 | 34.6 | 295 | 54.6 | |
χ2-test to compare the two study sites;
Low vitamins and minerals, high fat, high calorie;
High vitamins and minerals, high fiber, low fat, low calorie.
Figure 1a.Perceived body image by gender.
Figure 1b.Perceived body image by university.
Multi-factorial logistic regression analyses for factors associated with students’ perceptions of their body image adjusted for all other factors in the Table.
| Females | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Males | 5.15 (3.10–8.57) | 1.54 (1.16–2.04) | 0.38 (0.29–0.50) |
| <20 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 20–24 | 1.00 (0.53–1.88) | 0.83 (0.56–1.21) | 1.16 (0.80–1.69) |
| 25–29 | 0.41 (0.14–1.22) | 0.82 (0.49–1.37) | 1.54 (0.93–2.55) |
| ≥30 | 0.24 (0.80–0.68) | 0.71 (0.47–1.08) | 1.79 (1.19–2.69) |
| Southern Denmark (SDU) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Chester (UC) | 1.25 (0.70–2.25) | 0.47 (0.34–0.66) | 1.88 (1.36–2.61) |
| Studies in general | 1.16 (0.89–1.52) | 0.84 (0.65–1.10) | 1.16 (0.89–1.52) |
| Workload in addition to studying | 0.72 (0.39–1.31) | 1.09 (0.80–1.48) | 1.02 (0.75–1.38) |
| Housing | 1.08 (0.48–2.47) | 1.07 (0.68–1.66) | 0.93 (0.61–1.44) |
| Financial situation | 0.93 (0.56–1.52) | 0.67 (0.50–0.88) | 1.54 (1.17–2.04) |
| High calorie diet score | |||
| Low (1st tertile) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Medium (2nd tertile) | 0.73 (0.44–1.24) | 1.05 (0.76–1.44) | 1.07 (0.79–1.47) |
| High (3rd tertile) | 0.35 (0.18–0.69) | 1.29 (0.93–1.81) | 1.04 (0.74–1.46) |
| Healthy diet score | |||
| Low (1st tertile) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Medium (2nd tertile) | 0.59 (0.33–1.06) | 1.48 (1.07–2.04) | 0.83 (0.60–1.14) |
| High (3rd tertile) | 0.54 (0.30–0.99) | 1.58 (1.15–2.16) | 0.77 (0.56–1.05) |
| Low | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Medium | 0.97 (0.36–2.64) | 1.87 (1.04–3.35) | 0.56 (0.32–0.99) |
| High | 0.93 (0.36–2.41) | 1.93 (1.09–3.42) | 0.54 (0.31–0.93) |
| High (≥3 persons) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Low (<3 persons) | 1.04 (0.61–1.75) | 1.08 (0.80–1.46) | 0.92 (0.68–1.24) |
| Low | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Medium | 1.06 (0.65–1.73) | 0.89 (0.67–1.18) | 1.12 (0.84–1.48) |
| High | 1.50 (0.57–3.98) | 1.32 (0.76–2.29) | 0.69 (0.40–1.20) |
OR: odds ratio adjusted for all other factors in the table; CI: confidence interval;
low vitamins and minerals, high fat, high calories, high carbohydrate;
high vitamins and minerals, high fibre, low fat, low calories.