| Literature DB >> 32104661 |
Dilek Güleç1, Selen Yılmaz Işıkhan2, Emine Orhaner3.
Abstract
Background: Social media represents a revolutionary new trend that offers opportunities for and threats toward modifying health behaviours. Although social media has considerable health promotion and education tools, this article summarizes the relationship between the health promoting lifestyle and Facebook usage, as Facebook is one of the most popular tools in social media.Entities:
Keywords: Health promotion; Healthy lifestyle; Multivariate analysis; Social media
Year: 2020 PMID: 32104661 PMCID: PMC7036201 DOI: 10.15171/hpp.2020.13
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Health Promot Perspect ISSN: 2228-6497
Distribution of health promoting lifestyle subscales by sociodemographic groups
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
| Female | 37 | 179 | 139 | 77 | 129 | 87 | 142 | 74 | 43 | 173 | 101 | 115 |
| Male | 34 | 173 | 136 | 71 | 129 | 78 | 134 | 73 | 37 | 170 | 84 | 123 | |
|
| 0.846 | 0.838 | 0.584 | 0.828 | 0.594 | 0.200 | |||||||
|
| 18-34 | 18 | 111 | 76 | 53 | 71 | 58 | 80 | 49 | 23 | 106 | 50 | 79 |
| 35-64 | 40 | 167 | 137 | 70 | 127 | 80 | 128 | 79 | 42 | 165 | 89 | 118 | |
| 65+ | 13 | 74 | 62 | 25 | 60 | 27 | 68 | 19 | 15 | 72 | 46 | 41 | |
|
| 0.384 | 0.155 | 0.119 | 0.018* | 0.773 | 0.117 | |||||||
|
| Less than high school level | 22 | 90 | 67 | 45 | 67 | 45 | 78 | 34 | 21 | 91 | 47 | 65 |
| High school level | 46 | 206 | 166 | 86 | 153 | 99 | 161 | 91 | 50 | 202 | 108 | 144 | |
| More than high school level | 3 | 56 | 42 | 17 | 38 | 21 | 37 | 22 | 9 | 50 | 30 | 29 | |
|
| 0.014* | 0.301 | 0.833 | 0.511 | 0.710 | 0.488 | |||||||
|
| Single | 38 | 190 | 134 | 94 | 136 | 92 | 138 | 90 | 48 | 180 | 91 | 137 |
| Married | 33 | 162 | 141 | 54 | 122 | 73 | 138 | 57 | 32 | 163 | 94 | 101 | |
|
| 0.944 | 0.004** | 0.540 | 0.027* | 0.224 | 0.087 | |||||||
a Chi-Square; * * and * indicate significance at 0.01 and 0.05, respectively.
Distribution of Facebook usage variables by sociodemographic groups
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Gender | Female | 128 | 88 | 115 | 99 | 121 | 95 | 129 | 87 | 103 | 113 | 118 | 98 |
| Male | 84 | 123 | 101 | 108 | 92 | 115 | 103 | 104 | 103 | 98 | 107 | 100 | |
|
| 0.001** | 0.266 | 0.017* | 0.040* | 0.307 | 0.545 | |||||||
| Age(y) | 18-34 | 74 | 55 | 92 | 37 | 64 | 65 | 86 | 43 | 54 | 75 | 85 | 44 |
| 35-64 | 101 | 106 | 98 | 109 | 111 | 96 | 107 | 100 | 105 | 102 | 92 | 115 | |
| 65+ | 37 | 50 | 24 | 63 | 38 | 49 | 39 | 48 | 53 | 34 | 48 | 39 | |
|
| 0.088 | 0.001** | 0.292 | 0.003** | 0.022* | 0.001 | |||||||
| Education | Less than high school level | 72 | 40 | 43 | 69 | 54 | 58 | 63 | 49 | 67 | 45 | 58 | 54 |
| High school level | 119 | 133 | 139 | 113 | 123 | 129 | 130 | 122 | 123 | 129 | 143 | 109 | |
| More than high school level | 21 | 38 | 32 | 27 | 36 | 23 | 39 | 20 | 22 | 37 | 24 | 35 | |
|
| 0.001** | 0.011* | 0.209 | 0.123 | 0.016* | 0.079 | |||||||
| Marital status | Single | 109 | 119 | 130 | 98 | 108 | 120 | 132 | 96 | 108 | 120 | 132 | 96 |
| Married | 103 | 92 | 84 | 111 | 105 | 90 | 100 | 95 | 104 | 91 | 93 | 102 | |
|
| 0.304 | 0.004** | 0.184 | 0.173 | 0.221 | 0.036 | |||||||
a Chi-Square; * * and * indicate significance at 0.01 and 0.05, respectively.
Component loadings, eigenvalues among the demographic, Facebook usage indicators and health promoting lifestyle
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
| |||
| 1 | Gendera,b | -0.186** | 0.070 | |
| Educationb,c | -0.013 | 0.694** | ||
| Marital statusa,b | -0.524** | -0.032 | ||
| Age groupb,c | -0.758** | -0.166** | ||
| 2 | Health responsibilitya,b | 0.377** | -0.225** | |
| Exercisea,b | 0.064 | 0.041 | ||
| Nutritiona,b | 0.219** | 0.068 | ||
| Self actualizationa,b | 0.021 | 0.214** | ||
| Interpersonal supporta,b | -0.150** | 0.167** | ||
| Stress managementa,b | 0.191** | -0.273** | ||
| 3 | Friendsa,b | -0.285** | 0.497** | |
| Postsa,b | -0.491** | -0.338** | ||
| Pagesa,b | 0.032 | -0.141** | ||
| Groupsa,b | -0.435** | -0.006 | ||
| Like ratea,b | 0.238** | 0.320** | ||
| Comment ratea,b | 0.244 | -0.100* | ||
| Sets | 1 | 2 | Total | |
| Loss | Set 1 | 0.397 | 0.445 | 0.842 |
| Set 2 | 0.786 | 0.699 | 1.485 | |
| Set 3 | 0.358 | 0.440 | 0.798 | |
| Mean | 0.513 | 0.528 | 1.042 | |
| Eigenvalue | 0.487 | 0.472 | ||
| Fit | 0.958 | |||
* 0.05, ** 0.01 level of significance of the point-biserial correlations.
a Optimal scaling level: single nominal.
b Projections of the single quantified variables in the object space.
c Optimal scaling level: ordinal.
Figure 1
Figure 2