A Study on Health Promoting Lifestyle of Hospital Nurses.
- Author:
Young Chu PAIK
1
;
In Sook KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Nursing, College of Medicine, Chosun University, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Nurse;
Health promoting lifestyle;
Self-efficacy;
Perceived health status;
Social support
- MeSH:
Fatigue;
Gwangju;
Hospitals, General;
Job Satisfaction;
Life Style*;
Surveys and Questionnaires
- From:Journal of Korean Academy of Adult Nursing
2000;12(3):477-489
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
The purpose of study was to assess how hospital nurses practice their health promoting lifestyle and to identify affecting factors. The subjects were 286 nurses working at three general hospitals in Kwang-ju. The data were collected by questionnaire from September 1st. to September 10th, 1999. The instruments for this study were the Health Promoting Lifestyle Profile developed by Walker et al., perceived health status scale developed by Ware et al., self-efficacy scale developed by Sherer et al., and social support scale developed by Cohen et al.. The data were analyzed with mean, standard deviation, t-test, ANOVA, Pearson's Correlation Coefficient and Stepwise Multiple Regression. The results of this study were as follows: 1. The mean score of health promoting lifestyle was 2.36. Interpersonal support showed the highest score(2.67) and health responsibility (1.92) showed the lowest score. The mean score of perceived health status was 3.07, self-efficacy was 2.62, and social support was 2.91. 2. The relationship between general characteristics of subjects and health promoting lifestyle showed significant differences according to duty cycle(t=4.15, p=.042), disease experience (t=5.18, p=.023), monthly income(F=3.13, p=.025), exercise frequency(F=9.12, p=.000), stress reliefe method(F=5.98, p=.000), job satisfaction(t=11.44, p=.000), and perceived fatigue(F=6.13, p=.002). 3. Health promoting lifestyle showed significant positive correlations with perceived health status (r=.2190, p=.0002), self-efficacy (r=.5137, p=.0001) and social support (r=.5181, p=.0001). 4. The combination of social support(27.1%), exercise frequency(10.4%), self-efficacy(8.8%), job satisfaction, perceived health status, perceived fatigue and explained 53.5% of the variance of health promoting lifestyle. Therefore, this study suggests that a replicate study is needed until more affecting factors other than health promoting lifestyle.
