Abstract
Introduction: No research among Finnish universities grouped students into clusters, based on their lifestyle behavioral risk factors (BRFs), and appraised relationships of the clusters with self-reported burdens, adjusting for confounders. The current study undertook this task.
Methods: Students (n=1169) at Turku University completed online questionnaire comprising sociodemographic variables (age, sex, income, social support), 18 burdens, and 5 BRFs (smoking, alcohol, drug use, food habits). Factor analysis reduced burdens into factors; cluster analysis of BRFs categorized students into clusters. Regression models appraised associations between sociodemographics and clusters with burdens.
Results: Mean age was ≈23 years, with ≈70% females, 23.4% smokers, 28.8% problematic drinkers, 21% illicit drug/s users, and mean dietary guideline adherence=4.84±1.57. Factor analysis of burdens generated four factors: ‘Studies’=3 items; ‘Future’=3 items; ‘Relationships’=7 items; and ‘Needs’=5 items. Cluster analysis produced four BRFs clusters with significantly different BRFs and sociodemographics. Cluster 1 exhibited less risk-taking behaviors, Cluster 4 comprised more risk-taking, and the other two clusters fell in-between. Regression showed that females were more likely to report ‘Studies’+‘Relationships’ burdens; higher social support was associated with less burdens generally; older age was associated with less ‘Studies’+‘Future’+‘Relationships’ burdens; and sufficient income was associated with less ‘Studies’+‘Future’+‘Needs’ burdens. Compared to Cluster 1, Cluster 4 membership was more likely to feel ‘Needs’ burdens; Cluster 3 more likely to report ‘Relationships’+‘Needs’ burdens (p range: <0.05 to <0.01 for all).
Conclusion: Controlling for sociodemographics, cluster membership was more influenced by students’ perceptions of ‘Relationships’+‘Needs’, rather than academic difficulties of ‘Studies’ or unsecure ‘Future’. Risk taking was more likely with relationship difficulties, isolation, and day-to-day problems (housing, financial situation, health) rather than academic load or concerns for future prospects. Preventive and intervention efforts tackling students’ lifestyle behaviours need to consider programs aimed at better relationship building/maintenance to prevent isolation, while mitigating ‘on-the-ground’ everyday challenges that students face.