Health related quality of life of students at King Khalid University
- (0) Download
https://www.eduzhai.net International Journal of Nursing Science 2014, 4(2): 22-25 DOI: 10.5923/j.nursing.20140402.02 Health-Related Quality of Life among Students at King Khalid University – Mohail Asser Mona Mohamed Megahed Nursing Department, College of applied medical sciences Mohaiel Asser, king Khalid University, Saudi Arabia Abstract Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) is a broad multidimensional concept that typically encompasses self-reported measures of physical and mental health. HRQOL encompasses several domains to include functional ability, psychological state, social function, and an individual's perception of his or her health. Objective: Evaluate quality of life among university students and Compare differences of quality of life domains across males and females. Methods: A cross-sectional study design was conducted among randomly selected 286 Saudi students from both sexes. From December 2011 to March 2012 among students at community college, applied medical sciences college and education college, king Khalid University. Two tools were used for data collection named interview questionnaire sheet covered socio demographic data and "MOS-SF 36 (version 1.0). Results: 57% of study sample aged 21-24 years, 65.4% were female students, and 90.6% were single, lowered mean scores in most of eight health domains among study sample. There is a significant difference between study sample sex, type of education and their eight heath domains. Conclusions: The study findings reflect poorer health related quality of life among study sample; female students had lower scores than male. More studies are recommended to explore factors affecting quality of life of university students especially in the medical field, and counseling programs that help them relieve stress and strains which impact in improve their physical and mental health. Keywords Health -Related Quality of Life, MOS-SF 36, University student 1. Introduction Quality of life is a popular term that conveys that overall sense of well-being, including aspects of happiness and satisfaction with life as a whole. It's abroad and subjective rather than specific and objective although health is an important domain of overall quality of life, there are other domains as well- instance: jobs, housing, schools, and the neighborhood. Aspects of culture, values, and spirituality are also key aspects of overall quality of life that add to the complexity of its measurement.  Since 1948, when the world health organization defined health as being not only the absence of disease and infirmity but also the presence of physical, mental and social wellbeing, quality of life issues have become steady more important.  moreover Quality of life was defined by WHO as the individual perception of his position in life, within the context of culture and system of values where the individual lives and in relation to his objectives, expectations, standards and concerns.  * Corresponding author: email@example.com (Mona Mohamed Megahed) Published online at https://www.eduzhai.net Copyright © 2014 Scientific & Academic Publishing. All Rights Reserved Health related quality of life (HRQOL) assessment has increasingly been acknowledged as valuable for decision making in clinical and community settings, it provides information about the functioning and wellbeing of population.  HRQOL is rapidly gaining acceptance as a measurable outcome. It’s a broad multidimensional concept that typically encompasses self –reported measures of functional ability, psychological state, social function, and individual perception of his/her health.  University life is stressful period in one's life that can result in lowered levels of HRQOL, common stressors among university students are academic pressure, peer pressure, being away from home.  University students are special population group regarding health issues. Their worries, concerns and burdens differ from other population groups, they are more susceptible to stress, burning out, depression, and anxiety.  There may be several factors affected them such as academic courses and training.  Studying the HRQOL among university students is very significant because their HRQoL not only affect them but also affect students' performances and good health produce good quality students. So the current study is conducted to evaluate quality of life among university students’, compare differences of quality of life domains across males and females and Identify factors affect quality of life. International Journal of Nursing Science 2014, 4(2): 22-25 23 2. Methodology 3. Results 2.1. Research Design A cross-sectional study design was conducted From December 2011 to March 2012. 2.2. Study Setting and Subjects The study was conduct among Saudi students from both sexes at community college, applied medical sciences college and education college, king Khalid University. Inclusion criteria: Age: 18-25 Gender: both Only Saudi students. Willing to participate in the study. Exclusion criteria: Any student with chronic disease. Handicapped students. On daily medication for any medical condition. Pregnant ladies. Total number of 305 was randomly selected from students name list. According to sample criteria 286 were the study sample. 2.3. Tools of Data Collection Tool (1): Interviewing questionnaire was used covered the following items (age, college, level, marital status, sex, chronic disease and taking daily medication). Tool (2): The medical outcome study "MOS-SF (version 1.0)" is the RAND 36-item health survey taps eight health concepts as the following; physical function, bodily pain, role limitation due to physical of health problems, role limitation due to personal or emotional problems, emotional well-being, social function, energy/fatigue and general health perception. The tool is reliable (Cronbach's alpha coefficient r = .742). Scoring: scoring procedure for MOS-SF 36 has been distributed by International Resource Center for health care assessment. In addition, each item is scored 0 to 100, a higher score indicating less limitation, better functioning or less pain (ware & sherbourne 1999, Hays & Shapiro 1992, and stewart et al 1992) [9, 10, 11]. Total number of study sample was 286 with mean age 20.99+ 1.73, 65.4% were females and majority of them (90.6%) were single. Table (1) Table (1). Study Sample General Characteristics (n =286) Items No % Age / year 18-20 21-24 123 43.0 % Mean ( X +SD) 20.99+ 1.73 163 57.0 % Sex Male Female 99 34.6 % 187 65.4 % Marital status Single Married Divorced 259 90.6 % 24 8.4 % 3 1.0 % As regard study sample type of education, Education College represented 36%, Heath Science College 34.6% and Society College 29.4%. Figure (1) Figure (1). Study sample type of education Table (2). Study Sample HRQOL Score (n =286) Items Mean ( X + SD) Physical Functioning 79.37+17.06 2.4. Ethical Consideration An official permission with written letter clarifying purpose of the study was obtained from the dean of the colleges to conduct the field work of the study. 2.5. Statistical Method for Analysis Data entry inserted using SPSS statistical software packages. Data was presented using descriptive statistics in the form of frequencies and percentages for qualitative variables, and means and standard deviations for quantitative variables. Anova test used to compare between means. Role Limitation due to Physical Health Role Limitations due to Emotional Problems Energy/ Fatigue Emotional Wellbeing Social Functioning Pain General Health 48.43+32.80 44.63+37.98 50.02+19.33 60.73+22.39 48.16+17.33 38.47+25.58 70.47 +17.83 24 Mona Mohamed Megahed: Health-Related Quality of Life among Students at King Khalid University – Mohail Asser Table (3). Study Sample HRQOL Score by Their Sex Items Physical Functioning Role Limitation due to Physical Health Role Limitations due to Emotional Problems Energy/ Fatigue Emotional Wellbeing Social Functioning Pain General Health Male (99) 90.30+13.26 59.84+35.32 54.88+39.64 53.68+18.17 65.49+28.25 43.43+13.40 24.20+18.20 75.30+17.55 Female (187) 73.58+16.01 42.39+29.75 39.21+36.01 48.08+19.69 58.21+18.14 50.66+18.63 46.02+25.73 67.91+17.49 F 79.123 19.516 11.413 5.511 6.988 11.702 56.263 11.506 Table (4). Study Sample HRQOL Scores by Their Type of Education (n =286) Items Physical Functioning Role Limitation due to Physical Health Role Limitations due to Emotional Problems Energy/ Fatigue Emotional Wellbeing Social Functioning Pain General Health Medical Sciences(n=103) 69.90+15.68 39.32+30.63 41.10+36.21 48.81+20.50 56.64+18.16 49.75+18.52 50.67+26.50 65.09+17.41 Education (n=84) 78.09+15.32 46.16+28.36 36.90+35.85 47.20+18.74 60.14+18.04 51.78+18.82 40.32+23.68 71.37+17.06 Society (n=99) 90.30+13.26 59.84+35.32 54.88+39.64 53.68+18.17 65.49+28.25 43.43+13.40 24.20+18.20 75.30+17.55 F 48.516 10.874 5.990 2.911 4.074 6.172 33.610 8.884 Sig. .000 .000 .001 .020 .009 .001 .000 .001 Sig. .000 .000 .003 .056 .018 .002 .000 .000 Table (2) showed HRQOL eight health domains mean scores among study sample as follow: high mean scores was in Physical Functioning(79.37) and general health( (70.47 ) however lowered scores was in Physical Health (48.43), Social Functioning (48.16), Emotional Problems (44.63) and pain (38.47). There were significant differences between male and female HRQOL eight health domains; male participant had high scores in most of health scales while female participant had high scores than male only in Social Functioning (50.66) and pain (46.02). Table (3) Table (4) Compare between study sample HRQOL Scores by their type of education, the lower scores in eight health domains as the following: Physical functioning (69.90), physical health (39.32), emotional wellbeing (56.64) and general health (65.09) among medical sciences students. Role limitations due to emotional problems (36.90) and energy/ fatigue (47.20) among education college students. Social functioning (43.43) and pain (24.20) among society college students. There were significant differences between study sample type of education and their HRQoL eight health domains. 4. Discussion Quality of life is one's subjective perception of one's own well- being within one's socio cultural context.  HRQOL questions about perceived physical and mental health and function have become an important component of health surveillance and valid indicators of service needs and intervention outcomes.  HRQOL measures make it possible to demonstrate scientifically the impact of quality of life on health.  Our present study carried out to evaluate quality of life among university students', their mean age was 20.99+ 1.73, majority of them were females and single. The study results revealed poorer quality of life among study sample, mean score of physical health, role limitation due to emotional problems, energy/ fatigue, emotional wellbeing, social functioning and pain were lower scores, this finding was the same as study observed impairment in HRQL among medical students,  but other studies contracted with us. [15, 16, 17] Worse health- related quality of life was found among female university students.  In study carried out among university students to explore factors associated with health related quality of life several factors found to be associated with worse quality of life such as female sex and more frequent use of health – care services.  our results shown female students had lower mean scores in most of health domains than male students, this result was consistent with another study found gender influenced the quality of life, male students had significantly higher scores than female students.  Moreover female students experience more stress and more susceptible to negative stressful life events than men, theses negative perceptions of stressful life situations may interfere in female students' self – evaluation International Journal of Nursing Science 2014, 4(2): 22-25 25 of their well- being.  however female students mean score higher than males in social function domain, studies shown that women are better than men in dealing with interactions.  students in medical field present higher levels of stress, responsibilities and academic pressure compared with other students of the same age in other programs that impact on student's health and quality of life.  In our study we found significant differences between type of education and HRQOL domains, medical applied health sciences students shown lower scores than other specialties in Physical functioning, physical health, emotional wellbeing and general health. 5. Conclusions Overall, the current study reflected poorer health related quality of life among study sample; female students had lower scores than male, especially applied medical health sciences students. University students in medical field need health measures and counseling programs that help them relieve stress and strains which impact in improve their physical and mental health. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank all the students at the College of Medical Applied Sciences, Education College and Society College at King Khalid University, for their sincere cooperation. among university students, international journal of social psychiatry, 57(1):69-80.  Dyrbye L.N., Thomas M.R., Power D.V., et al. (2010): Burnout and serious thoughts of dropping out of medical school: A multi- institutional study. Acad Med 85:94-102.  Paro H.B, Morales N.M, Silva C.H, Rezende C.H, et al (2010): Health related quality of life of medical students. Med Educ 44:227-235.  Ware J.E., Sherburne, C.D. (1992): The MOS 36-Items Short Form from Healthy survey CSF- 36; Conceptual Frame Work and Item Selection, Medical Care 30:473-483.  Hays R.D., Shapiro M.F. (1992): An overview of generic health related quality of life measure for HIV research. Quality of life research; 1:91-97.  Stewart A.L., Sherbourne C.D., Hays R.D. et al (1992): Summary and discussion of MOS measures, IA.AL Steward J.E.; Ware (eds), Measuring functioning and wellbeing: the medical outcome study approach; pp: 345-371.Durham N.C. Duke university press.  Tengland P.A (2006): The goal of health work: quality of life, health and welfare. Med Health Care Philos; 9(2):155-67.  Idler E.L., Benyamini Y. (1997): Self –related health and mortality: a review of twenty- seven community studies. J Health Soc Behav; 38:21-37.  Kanarek N., Sockwell D., Jia H. (2000): CDC. Community indicators of health- related quality of life- United States, 1993-1997. MMWR; 49:281-85.  Klemenc-Ketis Z., Kersnik J., Eder K., Colaric, D. (2011): Factors associated with health- related quality of life among university students; Srp Arh Celok Lek, Mar- Apr; 139(3-4): 197-202. REFERENCES  McHorney C.A, (1999): health status assessment methods for adults: past accomplishments and future challenges. Annual rev public health; 20:309-35.  Coelho R., Ramos S., Prata J., Betten Courtp., Ferreira A., et al (2005): heart failure and health related quality of life. Clic Prect Epidemol Ment Health Oct; 41-19.  World health organization (1995): World health organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): position paper from WHO, Soc Sci Med: 41(10):1403 -9.  Ismail A., Mohamed C.N.(2011): A comparative study of health related quality of life (HRQoL) of schoolteachers from the largest primary and secondary schools in urban Shah Alam, Malaysia: across sectional study, international conference on social science and humanity IPEDR vol.5.  Beck C.A, shah s (2012): Research on health – related quality of life and cardiac conditions, home health nurse, Jan; 30(1):54-60.  Hamaideh S.H (2011): stressors and reactions to stressors  Mikolajczy R.T., Brzoska P., Maier C. Ottava V., et al (2008): Factors associated with self- rated health status in university students: across- sectional study in three European countries. BMC Public Health; 8:215.  Castren J., Huttunen T., Kunttu K. (2008): Users and non-users of web based health advice service among finish university students- chronic conditions and self – reported health status (across- sectional study). BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 8:8.  Baldassin S., Alves T.C., De Andrade A.G., Nogueira Martins L.A. (2008): The characteristics of depressive symptoms in medical students during medical education and training: a cross- sectional study. BMC Med Edu; 8:60.  Zhang Y., Qu B., Lun S., Wang D., Guo Y. et al (2012): Quality of life of medical students in china: a study using the WHOQOL- BREF. PLOS ONE 7(11).  Palchykov V., Kaski K., Kertesz J., Barabasi A.L., Dunbar R.I. (2012): Sex differences in intimate relationships. Sci Rep 2:370.  Tempski P., Perotta B., Pose R.A., Vieira J.E. (2009): a questionnaire on the quality of life of medical students. Med Educ; 43:1107-1108.
... pages left unread,continue reading
Free reading is over, click to pay to read the rest ... pages
0 dollars，0 people have bought.
Reading is over. You can download the document and read it offline
0people have downloaded it