| Literature DB >> 27083414 |
Janet Junqing Chu1, Mobarak Hossain Khan2, Heiko J Jahn2, Alexander Kraemer2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sense of Coherence (SOC) is considered as a health-promoting resource; it is mainly developed before the age of 30. The multiple demands university students face, such as study-related stress and financial difficulty, could challenge their SOC development. This study aimed to: 1) investigate the association between SOC, socio-demographic and lifestyle-related characteristics; 2) assess the effect of perceived stress on SOC controlling for other variables among the Chinese university students. Analyses were done to derive a better view on possible strategies to strengthen students' SOC and with that to promote their health.Entities:
Keywords: Health; Salutogenic; Sense of Coherence; Social support; Stress; University students
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27083414 PMCID: PMC4833908 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-016-3003-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Fig. 1Relation between Stressors, Generalized Resistance Resources and Sense of Coherence (adopted Antonovsky’s Salutogenic model of health [Antonovsky, 1979, p. 184–185])
Sample description
| Variables | Categories | Number (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 948 (52.1) |
| Female | 873 (47.9) | |
| Father’s education | High | 810 (45.8) |
| Low | 958 (54.2) | |
| Having religious beliefs | No | 1521 (83.7) |
| Yes | 297 (16.3) | |
| Income sufficiency | Sufficient | 1466 (81.2) |
| Insufficient | 339 (18.8) | |
| Only-child | Yes | 1092 (60.0) |
| No | 727 (40.0) | |
| Birth place | Countryside | 596 (32.8) |
| Small city | 623 (34.3) | |
| Large citya | 598 (32.9) | |
| Subjective health | Good | 1648 (89.2) |
| Poor | 200 (10.8) | |
| Health awareness | High | 1232 (67.2) |
| Low | 601 (32.8) | |
| Nutrition importance | Importance | 1616 (89.3) |
| Unimportance | 193 (10.7) | |
| Physical activity | < 1 a week | 510 (28.5) |
| 1–2 a week | 872 (48.8) | |
| ≥ 3 a week | 406 (22.7) | |
| Weight satisfaction | Satisfied | 860 (47.4) |
| Dissatisfied | 955 (52.6) | |
| Good grade importance | Important | 1686 (92.8) |
| Unimportant | 130 (7.2) | |
| Performance compared with peers | Better | 640 (35.3) |
| The same | 691 (38.1) | |
| Worse | 482 (26.6) | |
| Having a partner | Yes | 567 (31.4) |
| No | 1240 (68.6) | |
| Social support | Satisfied | 1336 (73.0) |
| Dissatisfied | 494 (27.0) | |
| Relation with parents | Good | 1652 (89.5) |
| Poor | 194 (10.5) | |
| Relation with fellow students | Good | 1628 (88.1) |
| Poor | 219 (11.9) | |
| Relation with friends | Good | 1676 (90.6) |
| Poor | 174 (9.4) | |
| Isolation at university | No | 1531 (83.1) |
| Yes | 312 (16.9) | |
| Political situation | Satisfied | 1031 (56.1) |
| Dissatisfied | 808 (43.9) | |
| Sense of coherence scale score | Weak (≤ 42) | 953 (52.6) |
| Strong (> 42) | 859 (47.4) | |
| Mean (SD) | ||
| Age | 20.8 (2.2) | |
| BMI | 20.5 (2.7) | |
| Perceived stress scale score | 24.7 (7.7) | |
aCities higher than county level
Bivariable analysis: associations of relevant variables with a strong sense of coherence (SOC) (SOC scale score median > 42)
| Variables | Categories | SOC scale score median |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 42 | |
| Female | 42 | 0.589 | |
| Father’s education | High | 43 | |
| Low | 41 | 0.079 | |
| Having religious beliefs | No | 42 | |
| Yes | 42 | 0.205 | |
| Income sufficiency | Sufficient | 43 | |
| Insufficient | 40 | < 0.001 | |
| Only-child | Yes | 42 | |
| No | 42 | 0.035 | |
| Birth place | Countryside | 42 | |
| Small city | 42 | ||
| Large cityb | 43 | 0.482 | |
| Subjective health | Good | 43 | |
| Poor | 37 | < 0.001 | |
| Health awareness | High | 43 | |
| Low | 39 | < 0.001 | |
| Nutrition importance | Important | 43 | |
| Unimportant | 37 | < 0.001 | |
| Physical activity | < 1 a week | 40 | |
| 1–2 a week | 42 | ||
| ≥ 3 a week | 44 | < 0.001 | |
| Weight satisfaction | Satisfied | 43 | |
| Dissatisfied | 41 | 0.015 | |
| Good grade importance | Important | 42 | |
| Unimportant | 40 | 0.282 | |
| Performance compared with peers | Better | 44 | |
| The same | 43 | ||
| Worse | 38 | < 0.001 | |
| Having a partner | Yes | 43 | |
| No | 42 | 0.250 | |
| Social support | Satisfied | 44 | |
| Dissatisfied | 37 | < 0.001 | |
| Relation with parents | Good | 43 | |
| Poor | 37 | < 0.001 | |
| Relation with fellow students | Good | 43 | |
| Poor | 37 | < 0.001 | |
| Relation with friends | Good | 43 | |
| Poor | 36 | < 0.001 | |
| Isolation at university | No | 43 | |
| Yes | 37 | < 0.001 | |
| Political situation | Satisfied | 44 | |
| Dissatisfied | 39 | < 0.001 | |
| Age | 0.026 | ||
| BMI | 0.292 | ||
| Perceived stress scale score | < 0.001 | ||
aChi square test for categorical variables and Mann–Whitney-U-test for continuous variables
bCities higher than county level
Odds Ratios (OR) with 95%-confidence interval (95%-CI) for associations of relevant variables with a strong sense of coherence (SOC)
| Variables | Categories | Strong SOC- model 1a | Strong SOC- model 2b | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95 %-CI | OR | 95 %-CI | ||
| Gender | Male | 1.08 | 0.87–1.36 | 1.05 | 0.81–1.37 |
| Female (Ref.c) | |||||
| Income sufficiency | Sufficient | 1.32 | 0.98–1.78 | 1.13 | 0.80–1.60 |
| Insufficient (Ref.) | |||||
| Only-child | Yes | 1.01 | 0.81–1.27 | 0.96 | 0.73–1.26 |
| No (Ref.) | |||||
| Subjective health | Good | 1.94** | 1.30–2.89 | 1.72* | 1.07–2.76 |
| Poor (Ref.) | |||||
| Health awareness | High | 1.52** | 1.18–1.94 | 1.40* | 1.05–1.87 |
| Low (Ref.) | |||||
| Nutrition importance | Important | 2.04** | 1.34–3.08 | 1.67* | 1.04–2.69 |
| Unimportant (Ref.) | |||||
| Weight satisfaction | Satisfied | ||||
| Dissatisfied (Ref.) | 1.02 | 0.82–1.28 | 0.93 | 0.71–1.21 | |
| Physical activity | < 1 a week (Ref.) | ||||
| 1–2 a week | 1.32* | 1.01–1.73 | 1.14 | 0.83–1.57 | |
| ≥ 3 a week | 1.61** | 1.17–2.21 | 1.13 | 0.77–1.66 | |
| Performance compared with peers | Better | 2.23*** | 1.66–3.01 | 1.64** | 1.15–2.34 |
| The same | 1.97*** | 1.48–2.62 | 1.62** | 1.16–2.26 | |
| Worse (Ref.) | |||||
| Social support satisfaction | Satisfied | 3.20*** | 2.44–4.21 | 2.56*** | 1.87–3.50 |
| Dissatisfied (Ref.) | |||||
| Relation with parents | Good | 1.32 | 0.86–2.03 | 1.10 | 0.68–1.79 |
| Poor (Ref.) | |||||
| Relation with fellow students | Good | 1.72* | 1.05–2.83 | 1.17 | 0.67–2.07 |
| Poor (Ref.) | |||||
| Relation with friends | Good | 1.17 | 0.69–2.03 | 1.04 | 0.56–1.91 |
| Poor (Ref.) | |||||
| Isolation at university | No | 2.54*** | 1.76–3.69 | 1.60* | 1.04–2.47 |
| Yes (Ref.) | |||||
| Political situation | Satisfied | 2.25*** | 1.80–2.82 | 2.05*** | 1.57–2.67 |
| Dissatisfied (Ref.) | |||||
| Age increase per year | 0.99 | 0.94–1.05 | 0.85 | 0.89–1.02 | |
| PSS score increase per point | - | - | 0.81*** | 0.79–0.83 | |
Model 1 included variables that were significantly associated with SOC in bivariable analysis (except PSS score); model 2 includes perceived stress scale score as an additional independent variable added to model 1
aNagelkerke R square = 0.30 (df = 18, N = 1,639, p < 0.001)
bNagelkerke R square = 0.53 (df =19, N = 1,587, p < 0.001)
cReference category; Significance of Wald test: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001