Pa ge 1 Pa ge 93 American Journal of Human Psychology (AJHP) Examining the Health-Promoting Lifestyle of College Students: A Quantitative Analysis Novielen Jean B. Dacay1*, Janna Grace Rañon1, Claire Lynn Culajara1 Volume 2 Issue 1, Year 2024 ISSN: 2994-8878 (Online) DOI: https://doi.org/10.54536/ajhp.v2i1.2823 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajhp Article Information ABSTRACT Received: May 12, 2024 Accepted: June 10, 2024 Published: June 14, 2024 Lifestyle is gradually shaped by an individual’s daily routine, behavior, and mannerisms. College students develop their lifestyles customary to academic demands and other influences that may construe healthy or unhealthy routines. This study the Health- Promoting Lifestyle profile of college students in the Davao Region using a quantitative analysis approach, which considers gender, department, and year level. The study utilizes the Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile II (HPLP-II) as its primary tool. A total of 350 students were randomly selected and their responses were subjected to a Shapiro-Wilk test for normality. The results revealed in Table 4 found significant differences between the different demographic groups and their varying significant effects to HPLP. Respectively, in terms of Gender, the significant difference in HPLP was determined by F (2, 22.3) = 10.2, p <0.001 with an effect size, eta- squared (η2) 0.056, indicating a small size effect. Moreover, the significant differences in Department reported an F (3,99.5) = 4.82, p = 0.003 with an effect size, eta-squared (η2) 0.040, indicating a small size effect. Furthermore, the Year Level differences was revealed by an F (5, 135) = 0.952, p <0.001 with an effect size, eta-squared (η2) 0.087 indicating a medium size effect. The data indicates that Year Level is the most influential demographic profile of respondents. Future researchers can explore a qualitative assessment of the dimensions of HPLP to determine the habitual engagements of students in distinct facets of healthy lifestyles. Anent to the study, it may be possible to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the factors that contribute to the promotion of healthy living practices amongst college students. Keywords Health-Promoting, Student Lifestyle, HPLP-II, College Student Health, Mental Health 1 University of Mindanao Digos College, Digos City, Philippines * Corresponding author’s e-mail: n.dacay.60274.dc@umindanao.edu.ph INTRODUCTION Lifestyle is multifaceted and has been defined in various scientific studies (Boldrer et al., 2023). It refers to the conglomeration of routines, behaviors, and mannerisms that have an impact on an individual’s holistic health. According to the constitution of the World Health Organization (WHO), health is not just the absence of disease in the body but also the state of an individual’s complete physical, social, and mental wellbeing. College students represent a significant population with unique lifestyle behaviors. The college period is a crucial time in early adulthood, where habits pose developments in physical, sexual, psychological, and social relations that may adopt healthy or unhealthy mechanisms. However, incorporating healthy habits is challenging for college students due to schedules, workloads, and stress that come with constant demands, greatly affecting their routines, behaviors, and engagement in healthy lifestyles (Dungog et al., 2021). A cross-sectional study by Alothman et al. (2024) indicated that various factors, including age, college major, and lifestyle behaviors, influence differences in lifestyle. College students represent a unique population with distinct lifestyle behaviors that are influenced by various factors. Based on the reports of the World Health Organization, it was found that a considerable 60% of an individual’s health and overall well-being is determined by their conduct and behavior. The crucial importance of lifestyle stewards an individual’s well- being; Worldwide, college students live sedentary and unhealthy lives (AlFlayyeh & Alotaibi, 2023). A recent study conducted in the Philippines (Dungog et al., 2021) revealed that the lifestyle of college students was deficient in several critical factors, including exercise, nutrition, water intake, rest, and overall physical condition. Despite the lack of sufficient studies addressing the assessment of healthy lifestyles among college students in the country, the literature has emphasized the importance of implementing programs designed to promote healthy lifestyle behaviors in tandem with addressing the students’ health status. The pivotal transition to college constitutes behavioral changes that alter lifestyle; a period marked by biological development, significant social role shifts, and changes in health-related behavior. With this, the Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile initially developed by Walker, et al in 1987 is a scale designed to measure the health-promoting lifestyle behaviors of people, thus, in the present study to assess the lifestyles of college students in the university, the study utilized the dimensions of Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile (HPLP) as the rudimentary factors for evaluation. Its dimensions were subjected to successive validity, drawing out the six (6) conceptually accepted subscales as its psychometric measuring tool for lifestyle. The current model explicated in 1995 is named the Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile - HPLP II (Adult Version) prompted by factors measuring adult engagement in healthy lifestyle (Nursing, S. O. 1995). In a confirmatory factor analysis study by Davis and De Guzman (2022), the HPLP Pa ge 94 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajhp Am. J. Hum. Psychol. 2(1) 93-103, 2024 and its psychometric dimensions were scrutinized for their reliability and validity in measuring the health- promoting behaviors of nursing students. Although the study drew out a recommendation for a 12-factor model, the 6-factor model demonstrated strong evidence of reliability and validity. The 52-item scale comprised of its dimensions (spiritual growth, interpersonal relations, nutrition, physical activity, health responsibility, and stress management) construe to further examining health-promoting behaviors of college students. The HPLP dimensions provided a framework for evaluating the various aspects of health-promoting behaviors that college students engage in on a habitual basis. In the forthcoming paragraphs, each dimension of the HPLP is provided with relevant references to substantiate the factors, demonstrated on how college students are immersed with the factors in a habitual basis. On the subject of physical activity, an analysis by Van Sluijs et al. (2021) has documented that young individual between the ages of 10-24 years old, which is approximately 81% of adolescents in the world, are associated with a decline in physical activity thus adverse effects are associated with its gradual decline. Silva et al. (2022) conducted a systematic review to identify the barriers that hinder university students’ engagement in physical activities. The findings of their study revealed that lack of time, lack of motivation, and a dearth of accessible places are the primary hindrances to physical activity. Sánchez- Hernando et al. (2021) further assert that the rise of the digital age has exacerbated this issue, as students increasingly spend more time on screens, leading to a reduction in daily physical activity. With regards to the nutritional needs of college students, it is common to have recently progressed from adolescence to adulthood and to be in a state of relative youth and good health. This may result in a tendency to overlook the importance of maintaining good health (Jang, 2016 & Chao, 2023). Consequently, students may consume non- nutritious food items. Additionally, the transition to university life, with its busy and demanding schedule, may prompt students to turn to easily accessible, ready- to-eat meals such as fast food, canned goods, or instant noodles. In a 2022 study conducted by Grajek et al., found that technological and cultural advancements have brought about a shift in dietary habits, which has resulted in the adoption of new food choices and preferences. The fast-paced lifestyle, the pursuit of self- actualization, and resulting overstimulation and lack of time have contributed to an increase in the consumption of high- calorie and processed foods. In addition, spiritual growth is considered in the assessment of the holistic health- promoting lifestyle of an individual, especially in college students. This pertains to an individual’s development is characterized by their capacity to transcend, connect, and foster growth. The process of spiritual growth includes the realization of one’s full potential, the identification of one’s sense of purpose, and the pursuit of one’s life goals (Walker et al., 1996). Spiritual growth, therefore, is an individual’s self- reflection, learning, and growth. Spiritual intelligence influences an individual’s problem-solving capacity and general goal setting (Emmons, 2000, Das & Sahoo, 2023) which are beneficial cognitive factors that sustain health- promoting behaviors for college students. The holistic importance of spirituality is admitted in equipping college students to have elevated capacities for resolving and managing stress, having a realistic perception of self, and dealing with everyday events, positively (Sogolitappeh, et al, 2018 & Joseph et al, 2021). More to the subject is interpersonal relations indicating a healthy lifestyle. Interpersonal relationships formed in school are considered the particular social context affecting the development of college students. (Jiang et al, 2021). According to the results from the study of Sun (2023), interpersonal relationships positively correlate with safety awareness and college student planning within college students. This enables a formation of positive psychological resolve significantly affecting their attention, their management of social anxiety, and overall positive attitude in dealing with their emotions. In the matter of health responsibility, according to Walker et al. (1996), health responsibility refers to an individual’s obligation to take charge of their own well-being. This involves being accountable for one’s health and adopting a proactive approach towards maintaining it. In essence, health responsibility requires individuals to recognize that they play a crucial role in promoting their own health and that it is their responsibility to do so. It is, therefore, imperative that individuals take the necessary steps to safeguard their health by making informed decisions and engaging in healthy behaviors. Study suggests that it is generally attributed to females being more health- conscious and perceived as more responsible. This claims that male adolescents enhance their health- promoting habits, including regular health checkups, maintaining a balanced diet, practicing activities like yoga and meditation, and avoiding health risks, to improve both physical and mental well-being (Bishnoi et al., 2023). Furthermore, concerning stress management among university students, findings from a 2019 survey by the American College Health Association reveal a significant portion of students experiencing heightened stress levels, with 34.2% identifying stress as a major obstacle to their learning. This heightened stress can escalate into severe mental health challenges such as anxiety, depression, and self-harm (Silver, 2019). The distinct differences in lifestyle often have implications across demographic groups, including gender, department, and year level. The present study aims to identify the lived lifestyle of college students, including their adherence to healthy lifestyle dimensions, and analyze the significant differences across each demographic group. Such an integrative approach has the potential to inform interventions and direct programs aimed at promoting health. AlFLayyeh et al. (2023) claimed that lifestyle greatly impacts college students’ health yet receives inadequate global attention. Pa ge 95 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajhp Am. J. Hum. Psychol. 2(1) 93-103, 2024 Further research revealed a significant connection between college students’ academic achievements and a healthy lifestyle (Al‐Momani, 2021). Corresponding inhibitions to practicing health- promoting behaviors are necessary to be addressed to render college students capable of longer run after university. Therefore, it is imperative to set intentional objectives to address this issue, starting with local initiatives. Schools can organize events and activities that encourage and support students in leading healthy lives. Teaching health-related topics in college settings is a cost-effective way to help students adopt healthy lifestyles, given their developmental stage. The significance of this study extends beyond college students to psychology practitioners, counselors, and other stakeholders. The goal is to promote human- focused welfare, and the results of this study can be integrated into the university’s community engagement agenda in the Davao Region to inform future operational plans. Identifying the population that needs interventions can reinforce the dimensions of healthy lifestyles, leading to a consolidated approach to achieving this goal. Finally, the data and findings of the present study can be utilized to make psychological recommendations for college students’ lifestyles. Research Objectives The course of the study aimed to garner data that will meet the objectives, as follows. 1. To determine the demographic distribution of the study, in terms of: 1.1 Gender 1.2 Department 1.3 Year Level 2. To draw out the level of health-promoting lifestyle profile (HPLP) of the respondents. 2.1 Spiritual Growth 2.2 Interpersonal Relations 2.3 Nutrition 2.4 Physical activity 2.5 Health responsibility 2.6 Stress management 3. To assess the significant difference between the Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile of college students, in terms of: 3.1 Gender 3.2 Department 3.3 Year level MATERIALS AND METHODS Research Respondents The study exclusively involved college students from the university in Davao Region, enrolled for the second semester of the school year 2023-2024. The researchers utilized a simple random sampling technique, commonly employed in making statistical inferences about a population (Mohajan, 2024). Moreover, the simple random sampling method allowed the researchers to statistically measure a subset of individuals selected from a larger group or population to approximate a response from the entire group. A total of 350 college students were included in the study corresponding the sample size through Slovin’s formula for a 5% margin of error with a 95% level of confidence with a total population of 3,868 college students in the premise. Research Instrument The present study employed the Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile II (HPLP II) as a primary assessment tool to gauge health-promoting behavior. The 52-item questionnaire consisted of six dimensions, namely spiritual growth, interpersonal relations, nutrition, physical activity, health responsibility, and stress management. Responses to each item were rated on a 4-point scale (4 = Routine, 3 = Sometimes, 2 = Often, 1 = Never), with higher scores indicating more frequent engagement in health-promoting behavior among the college students. Developed by Walker, Sechrist, and Pender in 1995, HPLP II has undergone extensive reliability and validity testing, with results consistently showing its refined psychometric properties (Guzman, 2022). The researchers were eager to request authorization from the author to employ the material in their study. Consequently, followed through by composing a message sent via electronic mail (e-mail). Moreover, the researchers conducted a pilot study on a sample of 50 respondents to evaluate the contextualized relevance of HPLP-II in the Philippine context, specifically in the university setting in the Davao Region. To ensure the internal consistency of the questionnaire, the researchers computed Cronbach’s Alpha for each item, with the coefficient reaching 0.941, indicating high reliability. A Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient closer to 1 is indicative of a higher level of internal consistency. Table 1 shows the index used to evaluate the mean scores of the dimensions conglomerate to HPLP-II of the college students at the university in Davao Region. The mean interval is displayed in the first column, while its Table 1: Index component to Health-Promoting Lifestyle of College Students Mean Interval Description Interpretation 3.26-4.00 Routinely The health-promoting lifestyle is met routinely. 2.51-3.25 Sometimes The health-promoting lifestyle is met sometimes. 1.76-2.50 Often The health-promoting lifestyle is met often. 1-1.75 Never The health-promoting lifestyle is met never. Pa ge 96 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajhp Am. J. Hum. Psychol. 2(1) 93-103, 2024 descriptive equivalence for interpretation is shown in the second and last columns. The dimensions of the scale were employed as the basis for factors requisite to a healthy lifestyle that are observed for presumptive differences in gender, year level, and department to be illustrated in the following tables that address the objectives of the study. Design and Procedure The researchers esteem its objectives and the information sought in the category of quantitative research, construed in its nature a descriptive-comparative correspondence: a statistical method focused on arranging, analyzing, interpreting, and presenting numerical data. Quantitative research is concerned with quantifying and explaining a phenomenon more objectively. Moreover, the ability to conduct quantitative research in huge populations or under well-regulated circumstances is a significant advantage (Mohajan, 2020). The researchers accumulated relevant literature and utilized validated questionnaires sourced from prominent researchers, Walker et al. (1995), focusing on health-promoting lifestyle behaviors of people. Data collection involved a dual approach: traditional distribution of printed questionnaires and the utilization of modern technology through Google Forms, ensuring accessibility and ease of participation for respondents. To uphold ethical standards, the researchers obtained permission letters signed by the adviser and endorsed by the Dean of the university before administering the questionnaires. Additionally, participants were provided with letters outlining the research’s ethical considerations. Following data collection, the researchers systematized and analyzed the gathered information using JAMOVI to conduct comprehensive analyses aligned with the study’s primary objectives. Statistical Treatment Pertinent to the quantitative approach, the researchers transcribed the data from the resolved questionnaires using JAMOVI, a statistical software, to realize the significant differences among independent variables (gender, year level, department) and the dependent variable (HPLP-II). Statistical methods that were carried out for the succession of the study were also assessed, as follows: The average (mean) from the collected resolved questionnaires were analyzed per dimension of the Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile of the college students. The mean of every dimension discloses the data for the first objective of the study which attests to the levels of health-promoting behaviors of the respondents. Moreover, in this study, the standard deviation follows the mean for every dimension and precedes to identifying differences within the independent variables (IV). This allowed the data to ascertain the intervals of the IV - within the genders, departments, and year levels - and the dispersed values concerning the mean. The researchers followed the sample size requirement for the field. The consideration of the total college population consisted of 3,868 college students which required a sample size of 350 respondents, with a confidence level of 95% and a margin error of 5% for the representation. The course of analysis was addressed for the Shapiro Wilk p, which is a hypothesis test that determines the normality of the data inputs. The researchers were able to analyze the data and demonstrated the normal distribution with a Shapiro- Wilk p = <0.001 corresponding to the criteria for a parametric test. Consequently, the ANOVA particularly tested the differences between the means of the HPLP- II of the different classifications of populations. More to the procedure, the data were subjected to a post-hoc test. Thus, the Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test was selected as an appropriate method for this purpose. The HSD test was administered to determine any statistically meaningful differences among the variables. This post-hoc test is commonly used to compare the means of multiple groups and is known for its high level of accuracy and reliability. The findings of this analysis will be crucial in interpreting the results of the study and drawing valid conclusions. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Demographic Profile of the College Students The study utilized the HPLP survey questionnaire to gather relevant data to address the research questions and objectives. The survey was administered to a diverse group of participants to ensure that the demographic distribution of the study was representative of the target population. The demographic distribution report presents information on the characteristics of the 350 respondents. Table 2 illustrates how individuals are distributed based on gender, department, and year level. Respectively, it indicates that 44.3% identify as male, 53.1% as female, and 2.6% as LGBTQ+. This suggests Table 2: Frequency Distribution of Gender, Department, and Year Level Profile f % Gender Female 155 44.3 % Male 186 53.1 % LGBTQ+ 9 2.6 % Department DTP 48 13.7 % DBA 52 14.9 % DTE 72 20.6 % DAS 59 16.9 % DCJE 91 26.0 % DAE 28 8.0 % Year Level Second year 155 44.3 % First year 118 33.7 % Third year 41 11.7 % Fourth year 36 10.3 % Pa ge 97 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajhp Am. J. Hum. Psychol. 2(1) 93-103, 2024 that most respondents identify as male or female, while a smaller percentage identifies as LGBTQ+. Similarly, the survey was disseminated to all departments of the university, and the findings indicated that the Department of Technical Programs (DTP) garnered 48 respondents, accounting for 13.7% of the study; the Department of Business Administration (DBA) recorded 52 respondents, representing 14.9% of the total number of respondents; meanwhile, the Department of Teacher Education (DTE) had 72 respondents, making up 20.6% of the overall representatives of the study. Moreover, the Department of Arts and Sciences (DAS) recorded 59 respondents, accounting for 16.9% of the total number of respondents. The Department of Criminal Justice Education (DCJE) had 91 respondents, which is equivalent to 26% of the total number of respondents. Lastly, the Department of Accounting Education (DAE) recorded 28 respondents, accounting for 8% of the overall representatives in the study. Furthermore, the respondents categorized by their year level as follows: with 155 individuals representing the second-year students, making up the largest group at 44.3% of the total number. The subsequent group comprised of first-year students, with 118 respondents, representing 33.7% of the respondents. The third-year students accounted for 41 respondents, which is 11.75% of the total number. Lastly, fourth-year students totaled 36 individuals, representing 10.3% of the respondents. Levels of Health-Promoting Lifestyle of College Students The data presented in Table 3 represents the mean (x̄) per-indicator obtained from the responses of the population’s representatives. The data is derived from the six subscales of the Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile, which serve as indicators of health- promoting behavior. These subscales include health responsibility, physical activity, nutrition, spiritual growth, interpersonal relations, and stress management. The subscales have been identified as reliable measures of health-promoting behaviors and provide a comprehensive understanding of the factors that contribute to healthy living. The scoring interpretations of the subscales are determined by employing the scale that was devised by Walker et al (1995). The subscale showing the highest level (x̄ = 3.08, SD=0.510) in the survey results was the respondents’ spiritual growth. This suggests that the practice of spiritual growth is prevalent among college students attending the university in the Davao Region. The dimension is defined by an individual’s development in transcending, connecting, and developing. Such development encompasses the maximization of one’s potential, the discovery of a sense of purpose, and the pursuit of one’s life goals (Walker et al., 1996). The findings imply that practicing spiritual growth has a positive impact on the mental health, healthy minds, and quality of life of college students, as noted by Satpathy and Samanta (2020). Furthermore, the results indicate that college students have developed the necessary skills to manage stress, possess a realistic perception of self, and can handle everyday events more effectively, as per Sogolitappeh et al. (2018) and Joseph J et al. (2021). Notably, spiritual care is a challenging area to learn and practice (Cone & Giske, 2017; Rykkje et al., 2021; Weathers et al., 2016). However, incorporating spiritual intelligence into the curriculum can be a deliberate effort to ensure success (Das & Sahoo, 2023) and promote health-promoting behaviors that sustain the lifestyles of college students. Table 3: Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile of College Students Subscale (x̄) Std. Deviation Description Health responsibility 2.17 0.630 The health-promoting lifestyle is met often. Physical Activity 2.42 0.623 The health-promoting lifestyle is met sometimes. Nutrition 2.51 0.506 The health-promoting lifestyle is met sometimes. Spiritual Growth 3.08 0.510 The health-promoting lifestyle is met sometimes. Interpersonal Relations 2.89 0.447 The health-promoting lifestyle is met sometimes. Stress management 2.71 0.444 The health-promoting lifestyle is met sometimes. HPLP overall mean 2.63 The health-promoting lifestyle is met sometimes. On the other hand, the findings of the study indicate that the respondents demonstrated a lack of concern for health responsibility (x̄ = 2.17, SD = 0.630). Health responsibility, as defined by Walker et al. (1996), pertains to an individual’s sense of responsibility for their own well-being. These results suggest that participants only occasionally prioritized health-promoting factors, including their attention to health education and professional assistance for their health status. According to Chao (2023), this phenomenon may be attributed to the perception of college students regarding their young and healthy bodies, leading them to neglect their health. The over-all mean reveal that health-promoting behaviors are met sometimes (x ̄ = 2.63) among college students, indicating that their health profile is frequently, albeit not consistently, attended to. It is common among adolescents to encounter impediments when it comes to sustaining a healthy lifestyle, as Tomy et al (2019) have noted. Stress has been identified as the most significant barrier, followed by diet, for college students. In addition, college students are known to have high stress levels, inadequate sleep, unhealthy dietary habits, and sedentary Pa ge 98 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajhp Am. J. Hum. Psychol. 2(1) 93-103, 2024 lifestyles (Alzamil et al, 2019, Almutairi et al, 2018, and Al-Qahtani, 2022). Research has shown that the absence of physical activity can have a proportional impact on one’s health, mood, and stress management (Schultchen, 2019) all of which make it challenging to engage in health-promoting behavior due to the ripple effect from dimension to dimension. The present study has produced significant antecedents regarding the health- promoting routines and behaviors of college students. Based on these findings, health interventions can be strategically targeted towards dimensions that are susceptible to low levels of engagement in such habits. By implementing interventions derived from the study, it is possible to address the global issue of neglected health habits among college students (AlFLayyeh, et al., 2023) starting in the locale. Significant Differences in HPLP on Different Demographics An analysis through ANOVA was performed to investigate the extent to which the demographic groups (independent variables), Gender, Department, and Year Level affect the Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile of college students in the university. Table 4: Significant Differences in HPLP on Different Demographics Sum of Squares df1 df2 Mean Square F P η2 Gender 3.06 2 22.3 1.531 10.2 <0.001 0.056 Department 2.21 3 99.5 0.736 4.82 0.003 0.040 Year level 4.76 5 135 0.952 6.52 <0.001 0.087 The results revealed in Table 4 found significant differences between the different demographic groups and their varying significant effects to HPLP. Respectively, in terms of Gender, the significant difference in HPLP was determined by F (2, 22.3) = 10.2, p <0.001 with an effect size, eta-squared (η2) 0.056, indicating a small size effect. Moreover, the significant differences in Department reported an F (3,99.5) = 4.82, p = 0.003 with an effect size, eta-squared (η2) 0.040, indicating a small size effect. Furthermore, the Year Level differences was revealed by an F (5, 135) = 0.952, p <0.001 with an effect size, eta-squared (η2) 0.087 indicating a medium size effect. The data indicates that Year Level is the most influential demographic profile of the respondents. This finding is consistent with the research conducted by Marendi et al (2024), which demonstrated that older college students are better equipped to cope with college stressors than their younger counterparts. As a result, higher-year students are better able to manage the challenges associated with college life, indicative of better health-promoting practices. In 2010, Diez and Fortis conducted a study to determine the socio-demographic variables that predict healthy behaviors. The research revealed that interventions aimed at promoting healthy behaviors should be tailored to each demographic group as they exhibit different characteristics that influence their health-promoting behavior. Additionally, a study by Anderson (2023), discovered that distinct lifestyle patterns exist among college students. Moreover, Castro et al (2020) addressed that a proportion of college students in the university have higher levels of sedentary lifestyle comparable to the total population of adolescence and young adults, suggesting a precedence of varying lifestyles from different demographic groups. Nevertheless, it is imperative to conduct further research to gain a deeper understanding of the factors that significantly influence the Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile (HPLP) of college students. A comprehensive analysis has a possibility to determine which factor can report a large effect on HPLP of college students. Furthermore, subsequent to the ANOVA, the study tests the differences between the means of the different classification by demography, thus evaluated through the Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference (HSD) post-hoc test, as follows. In Table 5, a gender-based association of Health- Promoting Lifestyle Profile (HPLP) reported expounded the results of its significant difference (p < 0.001) in HPLP. The result of the study identified prominent mean difference between Male and Female (0.175***), and Male and LGBTQ+ (0.327*). Table 5: HPLP differences in terms of Gender Male Female LGBTQ+ Male Mean difference - 0.175*** 0.327* p-value - <.001 0.038 Female Mean difference - 0.152 p-value - 0.484 LGBTQ+ Mean difference - p-value - Pa ge 99 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajhp Am. J. Hum. Psychol. 2(1) 93-103, 2024 In adolescence, different genders associate themselves with different habits, challenges, and routines that embody their lifestyle (Bishnoi, et al, 2023). The practices they engage in at this stage, including their health- promoting behaviors, may be enduring throughout adulthood. More to the claims of Bishnoi et al suggests that male adolescents enhance their health-promoting habits, including regular health checkups, maintaining a balanced diet, practicing activities like yoga and meditation, and avoiding health risks, to improve both physical and mental well-being. Male university students typically exhibit healthier lifestyles, characterized by increased exercise and better stress management, while female students prioritize stronger relationships (Núñez et al., 2020). Moreover, Mustafa et al. (2021) highlights a disparity in physical activity levels between genders, with males showing a greater tendency to engage in regular physical activity, such as exercising five times a week and achieving their target heart rate during workouts, compared to females. In addition, the difference suggests precedence in the study of Singh R, B., (2021), as there is a notable difference in spirituality between working females and males. The research indicates that males generally exhibit lower levels of spirituality compared to females. However, despite this difference, the study found that the overall life satisfaction levels of working males are comparable to working females, who tend to have higher levels of spirituality. According to (Craft, Carroll, & Lustyk, 2014), it is important to examine the quality of life, physical activity, and motives of various genders. More to the study, the reasons for physical activity may vary according to gender and may include weight loss, increased self-esteem, psychological well-being, and maintaining physical fitness. Additionally, to achieve the best health outcomes for each gender, the gender difference needs to be differentiated between different types of physical activity, including strength, endurance, flexibility, and balance. In Table 6, the departmental classification of HPLP reported a significant difference (p <0.001) elaborated through Tukey’s HSD particularly assessing the variations in the mean values of every department. Table 6: HPLP differences in terms of Department DTP DBA DTE DAS DCJE DAE DTP Mean difference - -0.0339 -0.0783 0.0941 -0.243*** -0.00333 p-value - 0.998 0.881 0.803 0.005 1.000 DBA Mean difference - -0.044 0.1280 -0.210* 0.03058 p-value 0.988 0.492 0.022 0.999 DTE Mean difference - 0.1725 -0.165 0.7500 p-value - 0.108 0.070 0.951 DAS Mean difference - <0.338*** -0.09746 p-value <.001 0.877 DCJE Mean difference - 0.24011* p-value - 0.045 DAE Mean difference - p-value - The most identifiable difference was found in Department of Criminal Justice Education (DCJE) and Department of Arts and Sciences (DAS) (-338***), followed by DCJE and Department of Technical Programs (DTP) (-0.243**), also with DCJE and Department of Accounting Education (DAE) (0.24011*), and lastly with DCJE and Department of Business Administration (DBA) (-0.210*). A consistent difference was found in DCJE. According to the institutional objectives for the department (2023), the DCJE program integrates learning focused on the mission to equip the students in delivering efficient skills in crime prevention, crime detection, and investigation, harbingers to physical training and activities of which other departments (DAS, DTP, DAE. DBA) do not consider as priority for conduct. The goals of various programs offered at the college are distinguished by their focus on interrelations, communication, and research. For example, the DTP program seeks to promote technological competency by imparting training on technological disciplines and developing information technology (IT) skills among students. Similarly, the DAE program aims to affiliate students with professional organizations and provide them with financial and business education components related to accounting. The DBA program emphasizes technological advancements and entrepreneurial facets, and it immerses college students in communication and technology-focused learning ventures. A study conducted by Castro and colleagues (2020) revealed that the sedentary lifestyle of college students is primarily caused by increased computer use, which is pertinent to the objectives of DAS, DTP, DAE, and DBA. In addition, studies provide evidence that physically active students had a superior quality of life than their non-active counterparts; in this example, sports-inclined departments were distinguished from students in other Pa ge 10 0 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajhp Am. J. Hum. Psychol. 2(1) 93-103, 2024 departments. (Çiçek, 2018 & Alothman, et al. 2024). Recent studies indicate that physical inactivity can have a significant impact on an individual’s health, mood, and stress management. The interrelatedness of these dimensions creates a ripple effect, which can further compound the challenges of engaging in health-promoting behavior. Schultchen (2019) highlights the importance of physical activity in maintaining an overall healthy lifestyle. Furthermore, the extreme difference in DCJE and DAS attested the results of the study of Gilan et al (2021), wherein medical sciences students have the highest HPLP score on interpersonal relations and physical activity addressed as the lowest attended health-promoting behavior. Researchers of the present study infer that the literature is pertinent to the representatives from the Bachelor of Science in Psychology, under DAS. In a recent study by Edelmann et al (2022), it was found that sedentary behaviors among individuals in different fields of study were distinctively organized. These fields include natural sciences, mathematics, social sciences, media, medicine, and education, among others. The study showed that such behaviors were primarily characterized by extended periods of sitting during lectures, seminars, and studying, with minimal physical exertion. The findings of this study suggest that the nature of academic work may contribute significantly to a sedentary lifestyle across different fields. In addition to Çiçek, (2018) & Alothman, et al. (2024), their study presented evidence that physically active students had a superior quality of life than their non-active counterparts; in this example, sports-inclined departments were distinguished from students in other departments. Also, the data presented in Table 7 reveals a significant variance in the Health- Promoting Lifestyle Profile (HPLP) based on the classification of year level (p = 0.003). The table reveals significant mean differences between Second Year and First Year (- 0.132 *), and within Fourth Year and Second Year (-0.2124 *). Table 7: HPLP differences in terms of Year Level Second year First year Third year Fourth year Second year Mean difference - -0.132* 0.0121 -0.2124* p-value - 0.031 0.998 0.018 First year Mean difference - 0.1439 -0.0806 p-value - 0.178 0.700 Third year Mean difference - -0.2245 p-value - 0.059 Fourth year Mean difference - p-value - The result of the study corroborates the claim that different year levels encounter distinct phases in life, necessitating different tasks, academic performance, and capacity, and levels of pressure. Additionally, Parande et al. (2021) report that age is a significant factor in stress management and health responsibility. Furthermore, other studies reveal that the year of study is a contributing factor to health-promoting lifestyles (Alzahrani et al., 2019, Muller, El-Ansari, El, 2022). CONCLUSIONS The study examined the Health-Promoting Lifestyle profile of college students in a university in the Davao Region. Demographic distribution of respondents was ensured through simple random sampling to uphold the validity of representation. Demographic profiles such as gender, department, and year level categorized the respondents. The survey data revealed that the male demographic comprised the highest number of respondents, while the LGBTQ community had the lowest representation. The Department of Criminal Justice (DCJE) had the highest number of respondents among departments, whereas the Department of Accounting Education (DAE) had the fewest. Additionally, second-year students constituted the highest number of respondents, with fourth-year students having the lowest representation. The study results indicated that college students exhibit moderate tolerance towards practicing Spiritual Growth. This suggests a developing sense of purpose in their pursuits and effective stress management, contributing to a positive outlook on daily circumstances. However, college students tend to pay less attention to their Health Responsibilities, a common trend among young and healthy adolescents who may overlook such responsibilities. While the overall Health Promoting Lifestyle Profile (HPLP) of students in the region is moderately met, routine practice is lacking. Recognizing the significant impact of a health-promoting lifestyle on current and future health underscores its importance in student development. The findings of the study can inform future interventions targeting the assessed dimensions. Moreover, the study concluded that significant differences exist in health-promoting lifestyles among college students, particularly concerning Gender, Department, and academic Year Level. Among demographic groups, Year Level was identified as the most influential profile affecting HPLP among college students. Additionally, health-promoting behaviors such as health responsibility, physical activity, nutrition, interpersonal relations, spiritual growth, and stress management were found to be influenced by the demographic profiles of respondents, indicating that different characteristics lead to varied habitual practices. Pa ge 10 1 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajhp Am. J. Hum. Psychol. 2(1) 93-103, 2024 RECOMMENDATIONS The study effectively fulfilled its objectives by investigating the Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile of college students in a university located in the Davao Region. However, there are areas where further attention and analysis could be beneficial for future endeavors. For students and readers, increasing awareness of health-promoting behaviors can serve as motivation to prioritize their well-being. Understanding the significant impact these behaviors can have on long-term health, starting from college years and extending into adulthood, underscores the importance of cultivating healthy habits regardless of individual differences in approach. For the university and its organizations, the study’s findings offer valuable insights into the lifestyle patterns of the student population. This information can inform the development of targeted interventions aimed at promoting healthy behaviors among students. Recommendations can be directed towards the university’s Community Extension Center and other relevant departments to design programs tailored to meet the specific needs identified in the study. To future researchers, while the study focused on the dimensions of the HPLP-II, there remains a need to explore other factors influencing students’ engagement in health-promoting behaviors. Additionally, the findings suggest that demographic factors may not be the sole determinants of such behaviors, highlighting the importance of considering individual traits and characteristics. Future research could delve deeper into the relationship between personality types and health- promoting lifestyles to provide a more comprehensive understanding of these dynamics. Furthermore, future studies could expand on the findings by examining how health-promoting behaviors relate to various aspects of students’ lives, such as academic performance and overall well-being. Understanding these connections can provide valuable insights for developing holistic approaches to support student success and thriving. Acknowledgements We, the researchers, Novielen Jean Dacay, Janna Grace Rañon, and Claire Lynn B. Culajara RPm, LPT, MSPsy would like to express our deepest gratitude to the incomprehensible value of every prayer, lending hands, and indelible lessons we have received that enabled us to fulfill this academic undertaking. To God, the Father Almighty, our Abba, the provider of our resources in strength, knowledge, understanding, and grace to carry through each day. The blood has guided and sustained us in every step and every aspect of the way. Thank You, Abba, for the people You sent that interceded in our favor; to our family; to our friends, may we be more equipped and educated – and find confidence there to manifest our dreams; to our significant loved ones that we shared the burden with. Everything we are and everything we will become and achieve; all is by grace and alone for His glory! REFERENCES Al-Momani, M. M. (2021). Health-promoting lifestyle and its association with the academic achievements of medical students in Saudi Arabia. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 37(2). https://doi.org/10.12669/ pjms.37.2.3417 Almutairi, K., Alonazi, W. B., Vinluan, J. M., Almigbal, T. H., Batais, M. A., Alodhayani, A. A., ... Alhoqail, R. I. (2018). Health promoting lifestyle of university students in Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional assessment. BMC Public Health, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12889-018-5999-z Alothman, S., Baiz, A. A. A., Alzaben, A. S., Khan, R., Alamri, A. F., & Omer, A. B. (2024). Factors associated with lifestyle behaviors among university students-A cross-sectional study. Healthcare, 12(2), 154. https:// doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12020154 Al-Qahtani, A. M. (2022). Lifestyle habits among Najran University students, Najran, Saudi Arabia. Frontiers in PublicHealth, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpubh.2022.938062 Alzahrani, S. H., Malik, A. A., Bashawri, J., Shaheen, S. A., Shaheen, M. M., Alsaib, A. A., Mubarak, M. A., Adam, Y. S., & Abdulwassi, H. K. (2019). Health-promoting lifestyle profile and associated factors among medical students in a Saudi university. SAGE Open Medicine, 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312119838426 Alzamil, H., Alhakbany, M., Alfadda, N. A., Almusallam, S. M., & Al-Hazzaa, H. M. (2019). A profile of physical activity, sedentary behaviors, sleep, and dietary habits of Saudi college female students. Journal of Family and Community Medicine, 26(1), 1. https://doi. org/10.4103/jfcm.jfcm_58_18 American College Health Association. (2019). American College Health Association-National College Health Assessment II: Reference Group Executive Summary Spring 2019. Silver Spring, MD: American College HealthAssociation. Anderson, A. R., & Ostermiller, L. (2023). The clustering of lifestyle behaviors in U.S. college students: A network approach. Journal of American College Health, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2023.2283 740 Bishnoi, R., Singh, S., & Pushpa. (2023). Health promoting lifestyles among adolescents: A gender perspective study. Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing, 14(2), 202-207. Retrieved from https://www.proquest. com/scholarly-journals/health-promoting-lifestyles- among-adolescents/docview/2842081846/se-2 Boldrer, F., Viganò, A., Paterna, A., Palena, N., & Greco, A. (2023). Narrative review and analysis of the use of “Lifestyle” in health psychology. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(5), 4427. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20054427 Castro, Ó., Bennie, J. A., Vergeer, I., Bosselut, G., & Biddle, S. J. H. (2020). How sedentary are university students? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prevention Pa ge 10 2 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajhp Am. J. Hum. Psychol. 2(1) 93-103, 2024 Science, 21(3), 332–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11121-020-01093-8 Çiçek, G. (2018). Quality of life and physical activity among university students. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(6), 1141–1148.https://doi. org/10.13189/ujer.2018.060602 Chao, D. (2023). Health-promoting lifestyle and its predictors among health-related and non-health- related university students in Taiwan: A cross- sectional quantitative study. BMC Public Health, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15760-2 Cone, P. M. H., & Giske, T. (2016). Nurses’ comfort level with spiritual assessment: A study among nurses working in diverse healthcare settings. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 26(19-20), 2946-2956. https://doi. org/10.1111/jocn.13660 Correlation analysis between interpersonal relationship and mental health score of a medical college student. (2011). Chinese Journal of School Doctor, 25(7), 492-494. https://doi.org/10.16835/j.cnki.1000- 9817.2011.07.039 Craft, L. L., & Lustyk, M. K. B. (2014). Sedentary behaviors and measured physical activity in college student populations. Caravel, 5(1). Retrieved from https://sc.edu/about/offices_and_divisions/ research/news_and_pubs/caravel/archive/2020_fal /2020_sedentarybehaviors.php Das, B., & Sahoo, P. (2023). Spiritual intelligence, psychological well-being, and resilience: A comparative analysis among college students. Indian Journal of Positive Psychology, 14(3), 319-321. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/ spiritual-intelligence-psychological-well- b e i n g / docview/2878101541/se-2 Davis, B., & De Guzman, S. (2022). Validity and reliability evidence of Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile (HPLP)-II among nursing students: A confirmatory factor analysis. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 17(4), 364–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2022.05.009 Dungog, R. J., Tamanal, J. M., & Kim, C. H. (2021). The assessment of lifestyle status among high school and college students in Luzon, Philippines. Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 11(2), 57–65. https://doi. org/10.15280/jlm.2021.11.2.57 Edelmann, D., Pfirrmann, D., Heller, S., Dietz, P., Reichel, J. L., Werner, A. M., ... Kalo, K. (2022). Physical activity and sedentary behavior in university students–The role of gender, age, field of study, targeted degree,and study semester. Frontiers in Public Health, 10. https:// doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.821703 Ghanim, M., Al-Othman, N., Rabayaa, M., & Alqaraleh, M. (2021). Gender differences in health-promoting behaviors and psychological well-being of Palestinian medical students based on the HPLP II. Palestinian Medical and Pharmaceutical Journal, 7(2), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.59049/2790 0231.1092 Grajek, M., Krupa-Kotara, K., Białek-Dratwa, A., Sobczyk, K., Grot, M., Kowalski, O., & Staśkiewicz, W. (2022). Nutrition and mental health: A review of current knowledge about the impact of diet on mental health. Frontiers in Nutrition, 9. https://doi. org/10.3389/fnut.2022.943998 Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile: Development and psychometric characteristics. (1987, April 1). Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3644262 Joseph, J., Devara, V., Vijaykumar, S., Chandra, A. S., & Hiwale, J. (2021). Spirituality and spiritual well-being among nursing students. International Journal of Nursing Education and Research, 9(4), 458-460. https://doi. org/10.52711/2454-2660.2021.00105 Marendić, M., Aranza, D., Aranza, I., Vladislavić, S., & Kolčić, I. (2024). Differences between health and non- health science students in lifestyle habits, perceived stress and psychological well-being: A cross-sectional study. Nutrients, 16(5), 620. https://doi.org/10.3390/ nu16050620 Mohajan, H. (2020). Quantitative research: A successful investigation in natural and social sciences. Journal of Economic Development, Environment and People, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.26458/jedep.v9i4.679 Müller, C., El-Ansari, K., & Ansari, W. E. (2022). Health- promoting behavior and lifestyle characteristics of students as a function of sex and academic level. International Journal of Environmental Research andPublic Health, 19(12), 7539. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph19127539 Núñez-Rocha, G. M., López-Botello, C. K., Salinas- Martínez, A. M., Arroyo-Acevedo, H. V., Martínez- Villarreal, R. T., & Ávila-Ortiz, M. N. (2020). Lifestyle, quality of life, and health promotion needs in Mexican university students: Important differences by sex and academic discipline. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(21), 8024. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218024 Nursing, S. O. (1995). Health Promotion Model - Instruments to measure health-promoting lifestyle: Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile [HPLP II] (Adult version). Retrieved from https://hdl.handle. net/2027.42/85349 Quantitative Data Analysis. (2018). Retrieved from https:// doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102220-7.00018-2 Sánchez-Hernando, B., Antón-Solanas, I., Juárez-Vela, R., Gea-Caballero, V., Carboneres-Tafaner, M. I., Ferrer Gracia, E., ... Gasch-Gallén, Á. (2021). Healthy lifestyle and academic performance in middle school students from the region of Aragón (Spain). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,18(16),8624. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168624 Samanta, S., & Satpathy, T. K. (2020). Influence of spiritual intelligence on human psychology- A review. International Journal of Research in Pharmaceutical Sciences, 11(4), 4855-4865. https://doi.org/10.26452/ijrps. v11i4.3856 Schultchen, D., Reichenberger, J., Mittl, T., Weh, T. R. M., Smyth, J. M., Blechert, J., & Pollatos, O. (2019). Bidirectional relationship of stress and affect with Pa ge 10 3 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajhp Am. J. Hum. Psychol. 2(1) 93-103, 2024 physical activity and healthy eating. British Journal of HealthPsychology, 24(2), 315–333. https://doi. org/10.1111/bjhp.12355 Sedentary behaviors and measured physical activity in college student populations - Office of the Vice President for Research | University of South Carolina. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://sc.edu/ about/offices_and_divisions/research/news_ and_pubs/caravel/archive/2020_fall/2020_sedent arybehaviors.php Silva, R. M. F., Mendonça, C. R., Azevedo, V. D., Memon, A. R., Noll, P. R. E. S., & Noll, M. (2022). Barriers to high school and university students’ physical activity: A systematic review. PLOS ONE, 17(4), e0265913. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265913 Singh, R., & Bahadur, A. (2021). Gender differences in spirituality and subjective well-being among working couples in Indian society. Science Progress and Research, 1(3), 177–181. https://doi. org/10.52152/spr/2021.124 Sogolitappeh, F. N., Hedayat, A., Arjmand, M. R., & Khaledian, M. (2018). Investigate the relationship between spiritual intelligence and emotional intelligence with resilience in undergraduate students. Retrieved from https://philpapers.org/rec/SOGITR Sun, Y. (2023). The relationship between college students’ interpersonal relationship and mental health: Multiple mediating effect of safety awareness and college planning. Psychology Research and Behavior Management,16, 261–270. https://doi.org/10.2147/prbm.s396301 Tomy, C., Fathima, F. N., Mathew, S. S., & Johnson, A. R. (2019). Barriers to healthy lifestyle among college- going students in a selected college in Bengaluru Urban district. Indian Journal of Community Medicine, 44(5), 54. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijcm.ijcm_44_19 Ulla Díez, S. M., & Pérez-Fortis, A. (2010). Socio- demographic predictors of health behaviors in Mexican college students. Health Promotion International, 25(1), 85-93. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/ dap047 UM Digos College. (2023, September 12). Department of Criminal Justice Education - UM Digos College. Retrieved from https://www.digos.umindanao.edu. ph/department-of-criminal-justice-education Van Sluijs, E. M. F., Ekelund, U., Crochemore-Silva, I., Guthold, R., Ha, A. S., Lubans, D. R., ... Katzmarzyk, P. T .(2021). Physical activity behaviours in adolescence: Current evidence and opportunities for intervention. TheLanc e t ,398 (10298) ,429–442 . https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(21)01259-9