| Literature DB >> 24383608 |
Pablo Vera-Villarroel1, José A Piqueras, Walter Kuhne, Pim Cuijpers, Annemieke van Straten.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obesity is a public health problem of alarming proportions, including among the university population in Latin America. The purpose of this study was to determine the relation between the self-reported body mass index and the associated drug use and health-risk behaviors.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24383608 PMCID: PMC3880835 DOI: 10.1186/1747-597X-9-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy ISSN: 1747-597X
Mean values and standard deviations (SD) of the anthropometric characteristics, diet quality, physical activity and drug use of university students
| 17-24 | 19.91 (1.74) | 19.82 (1.73) | 20.03 (1.74) | -3.489 | 0.001*** | |
| 35-170 | 65.32 (11.72) | 71.65 (10.38) | 57.61 (8.06) | 42.749 | 0.001*** | |
| 1,40-1,97 | 1.69 (0.91) | 1.75 (0.06) | 1.61 (0.06) | 61.930 | 0.001*** | |
| 14,19-63,28 | 22.86 (3.00) | 23.46 (3.00) | 22.14 (2.84) | 12.931 | 0.001*** | |
| 1-5 | 2.87 (1.11) | 3.14 (1.06) | 2.53 (1.08) | 16.267 | 0.001*** | |
| 4-15 | 12.20 (2.12) | 12.20 (2.12) | 12.20 (2.12) | -0.041 | 0.970 | |
| 1-4 | 1.60 (0.37) | 1.61 (0.36) | 1.59 (0.37) | 1.568 | 0.120 | |
| 1-4 | 2.54 (0.88) | 2.60 (0.88) | 2.48 (0.88) | 4.093 | 0.001*** | |
| 1-4 | 1.23 (0.47) | 1.20 (0.43) | 1.28 (0.52) | -4.823 | 0.001*** | |
| 1-4 | 1.04 (0.17) | 1.05 (0.18) | 1.03 (0.15) | 3.158 | 0.002*** |
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.005.
Percentage distribution of the weight categories based on body mass index according to the WHO[46]of university students
| 1.8 | 73.7 | 21.9 | 2.6 | |
| 5.1 | 83.3 | 10.3 | 1.3 | |
| 3.3 | 78.0 | 16.7 | 2.1 |
Relation between weight categories and age, diet quality index, smoking habit, physical activity and current drug use based on BMI classification
| | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19.72 (1.71) | 19.83 (1.71) | 20.26 (1.80) | 20.54 (1.97) | 19.91 (1.74) | 3, 3299 | 12.547 | 0.001*** | | * | * | *** | * | | |
| 2.60 (1.14) | 2.87 (1.13) | 2.91 (1.05) | 2.65 (0.94) | 2.86 (1.11) | 3, 3262 | 3.341 | 0.018* | * | ** | | * | | | |
| 12.36 (2.22) | 12.24 (2.11) | 12.05 (2.14) | 12.04 (1.89) | 12.21 (2.12) | 3, 3264 | 1.392 | 0.243 | | | | | | | |
| 1.53 (0.40) | 1.60 (0.36) | 1.65 (0.36) | 1.72 (0.51) | 1.60 (0.37) | 3, 3226 | 6.961 | 0.001*** | | * | * | * | | | |
| 2.27 (0.92) | 2.53 (0.88) | 2.65 (0.88) | 2.63 (0.94) | 2.54 (0.88) | 3, 3260 | 6.797 | 0.001*** | * | ** | | * | | | |
| 1.27 (0.55) | 1.22 (0.46) | 1.24 (0.47) | 1.45 (0.74) | 1.23 (0.47) | 3, 3267 | 5.293 | 0.001** | | | | | ** | * | |
| 1.03 (0.12) | 1.04 (0.16) | 1.05 (0.17) | 1.09 (0.35) | 1.04 (0.17) | 3, 3242 | 3.028 | 0.028* | * | ||||||
Total sample.
Note: Significance levels for each ANOVA and Scheffé’s post-hoc comparison are depicted by: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.005.
Relation between weight categories and age, diet quality index, smoking habit, physical activity and current drug use based on BMI classification
| 19.30 (1.61) | 19.71 (1.69) | 20.15 (1.82) | 20.29 (1.77) | 19.82 (1.73) | 3, 1812 | 8.727 | 0.001*** | | | | *** | | | |
| 2.85 (1.09) | 3.19 (1.07) | 3.07 (1.02) | 2.67 (0.95) | 3.14 (1.06) | 3, 1792 | 5.466 | 0.001** | | | | | ** | | |
| 12.45 (2.03) | 12.28 (2.11) | 11.97 (2.15) | 11.64 (1.96) | 12.20 (2.12) | 3, 1794 | 3.585 | 0.013* | | | | | | | |
| 1.54 (0.46) | 1.60 (0.35) | 1.65 (0.37) | 1.73 (0.53) | 1.61 (0.36) | 3, 1779 | 4.193 | 0.006** | | | | | | | |
| 2.34 (1.09) | 2.58 (0.86) | 2.67 (0.89) | 2.69 (0.94) | 2.60 (0.88) | 3, 1794 | 2.136 | 0.094 | | | | | | | |
| 1.22 (0.62) | 1.18 (0.40) | 1.23 (0.48) | 1.38 (0.70) | 1.19 (0.43) | 3, 1801 | 4.662 | 0.003** | | | | | ** | | |
| 1.05 (0.18) | 1.04 (0.16) | 1.05 (0.18) | 1.12 (0.40) | 1.05 (0.18) | 3, 1788 | 2.895 | 0.034* | * | ||||||
Men.
Note: Significance levels for each ANOVA and Scheffé’s post-hoc comparison are depicted by: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.005.
Relation between weight categories and age, diet quality index, smoking habit, physical activity and current drug use based on BMI classification
| 19.91 (1.74) | 19.96 (1.72) | 20.53 (1.74) | 21.15 (2.30) | 20.03 (1.74) | 3, 1483 | 7.892 | 0.001*** | | | * | ** | * | | |
| 2.49 (1.15) | 2.53 (1.09) | 2.51 (1.04) | 2.60 (0.94) | 2.53 (1.08) | 3, 1466 | 0.089 | 0.966 | | | | | | | |
| 12.31 (2.31) | 12.18 (2.11) | 12.29 (2.09) | 13.00 (1.30) | 12.21 (2.11) | 3, 1466 | 1.135 | 0.334 | | | | | | | |
| 1.52 (0.38) | 1.59 (0.37) | 1.64 (0.35) | 1.71 (0.47) | 1.59 (0.37) | 3, 1443 | 2.210 | 0.085 | | | | | | | |
| 2.24 (0.84) | 2.47 (0.89) | 2.62 (0.84) | 2.48 (0.96) | 2.47 (0.88) | 3, 1462 | 3.055 | 0.028* | | * | | | | | |
| 1.29 (0.52) | 1.27 (0.51) | 1.27 (0.46) | 1.60 (0.82) | 1.28 (0.52) | 3, 1462 | 2.688 | 0.045* | | | | | * | | |
| 1.02 (0.08) | 1.03 (0.16) | 1.03 (0.11) | 1.03 (0.11) | 1.03 (0.15) | 3, 1450 | 0.068 | 0.977 | |||||||
Women.
Note: Significance levels for each ANOVA and Scheffé’s post-hoc comparison are depicted by: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.005.
Multiple regression analysis of the determining factors of the body mass index (BMI) of university students
| | | | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | | 25.87 | 0.001* | | 17.61 | 0.001* | | 15.80 | 0.001*** | |
| Sex | -0.23 | -12.63 | 0.001* | | | | | | | |
| Age (years) | 0.13 | 7.76 | 0.001*** | 0.15 | 6.43 | 0.001*** | 0.11 | 4.29 | 0.001*** | |
| Physical activity (frequency) | -0.02 | -0.98 | 0.32 | -0.03 | -1.09 | 0.274 | -0.01 | -0.07 | 0.940 | |
| Diet Quality Index (frequency) | -0.02 | -0.99 | 0.32 | -0.04 | -1.81 | 0.070 | 0.02 | 0.59 | 0.553 | |
| High-frequency drug use | 0.02 | 1.42 | 0.16 | 0.01 | 0.24 | 0.810 | 0.05 | 1.77 | 0.076 | |
| Medium-frequency drug use | 0.04 | 2.07 | 0.03* | 0.05 | 2.02 | 0.043* | 0.03 | 1.08 | 0.280 | |
| Low-frequency drug use | 0.01 | 0.83 | 0.41 | 0.02 | 0.95 | 0.341 | -0.01 | -0.08 | 0.932 | |
ar = 0.26; r2 = 0.07. br = 0.18; r2 = 0.03. cr = 0.13; r2 0.02.
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.005.