Open Access

Factors associated with unhealthy behaviours and health outcomes: a cross-sectional study among tuscan adolescents (Italy)

  • Giacomo Lazzeri1, 2Email author,
  • Elena Azzolini3,
  • Andrea Pammolli1, 2,
  • Rita Simi1, 2,
  • Veronica Meoni4 and
  • Mariano Vincenzo Giacchi1, 2
International Journal for Equity in HealthThe official journal of the International Society for Equity in Health201413:83

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-014-0083-5

Received: 26 March 2014

Accepted: 10 September 2014

Published: 25 September 2014

Abstract

Background

We aimed to determine the extent to which three core variables (school environment, peer group and family affluence) were associated with unhealthy behaviours and health outcomes among Tuscan adolescents. The unhealthy behaviours considered were smoking, alcohol consumption, sedentary lifestyle and irregular breakfast consumption; health outcomes were classified as self-reported health, multiple health complaints and life satisfaction. School environment was measured in terms of liking school, school pressure, academic achievement and classmate support; peer groups were evaluated in terms of the number of peers and frequency of peer contact. Family affluence was measured on a socioeconomic scale.

Methods

Data were taken from the Tuscan 2009/10 survey of "Health Behaviour in School-aged Children", a WHO cross-national survey. A binary logistic multiple regression (95% confidence intervals) was implemented.

Results

The total sample comprised 3291 school students: 1135 11-year-olds, 1255 13-year-olds and 901 15-year-olds. Peer group and school environment were associated with unhealthy behaviours such as smoking, alcohol consumption and sedentary lifestyle. Family affluence proved to have less impact on unhealthy behaviours, except in the case of adolescents living in low-income families. Poor health outcomes were directly related to a negative school environment. Regarding the influence of family affluence, the results showed higher odds of life dissatisfaction and poor self-reported health status in medium-income families, while low-income families had higher odds only with regard to life dissatisfaction. A consistent pattern of gender differences was found in terms of both unhealthy behaviours and health outcomes.

Conclusions

Unhealthy behaviours are strongly related to the school environment and peer group. A negative school environment proved to have the strongest relation with poor health outcomes.

Keywords

Inequalities in health Peers School environment FAS Nutritional status

Introduction

One of the main priorities of European public health decision-makers is to reduce health inequalities, which persist in spite of the "Health for All" policy of the World Health Organization (WHO) [1]. According to Health 2020 the European policy for health and well-being, it is of primary importance to address the social determinants of health and to reduce health inequalities. Health is influenced by the way in which people live, their access to health care, schools and leisure opportunities, their homes, communities and towns. Although socioeconomic inequalities are known to influence health-related behaviour, little is known about the differential effects of health promotion across socioeconomic groups. Several studies have correlated unhealthy behaviours, such as physical inactivity, unhealthy eating habits, smoking and alcohol consumption, with lower socioeconomic status [2]-[6]. However, other studies have found weak or non-existent relationships between socioeconomic status (SES) and health behaviours [7]-[13].

Among adolescents, unhealthy behaviour in the school environment has been associated with low academic achievement, obesity, poor self-reported health status, more numerous health complaints, regular smoking, longer time spent watching TV, unhealthy eating habits and drunkenness, and poor emotional well-being, life-skills, health behaviours and life satisfaction [10,11,14,15]. Some studies have found that smoking and physical inactivity are associated with the size of the peer group, and that smoking, alcohol use and physical inactivity are connected with the frequency of peer contact [16,17]. Various authors have reported that health inequalities related to school and peer environments are found both in risky health behaviours, such as smoking and alcohol consumption, and in various positive health behaviours [18]. Moreover, studies on socioeconomic status have found that differences among youths are better explained by the school environment and peer group rather than by SES [10,15,16].

The main aim of the present study was to ascertain which of the following factors - school environment, peer group, family affluence (an indicator of SES as measured by Family Affluence Scale (FAS)), gender, municipality size and nutritional status - were associated with unhealthy behaviours and negative health outcomes in Tuscan adolescents. A further aim was to determine the relative magnitude of these factors, in order to identify the primary influences on health behaviours and health outcomes within the study group.

Materials and methods

Study

Data were taken from the Tuscan 2009/10 survey of "Health Behaviour in School-aged Children" (HBSC), a WHO cross-national survey which collects data every fourth year from a random sample of schools [19,20]. The Ethics Committee of the National Institute of Health approved the protocol and agreed to the use of an opt-out consent form.

Design, sampling and data collection

The methods used to gather these data are described in detail elsewhere [19]. An anonymous structured questionnaire was administered in classrooms by trained personnel [20]. Dependent and independent variables were considered in the analysis.

Dependent variables

Five specific measures of unhealthy behaviour (smoking, alcohol consumption, physical inactivity, sedentary lifestyle and irregular breakfast consumption) and three measures of health outcomes (multiple health complaints, self-reported health and life satisfaction) were used as dependent variables.

Adolescent smoking habits were assessed by asking the participants how often they smoked tobacco. Response options were "every day", "at least once a week", "less than once a week" and "I don´t smoke". Subsequently, smokers (the first three response categories) were compared with non-smokers.

The level of sedentary lifestyle was measured by asking participants how many hours a day they spent watching television or using a computer, play-station or similar media devices [21,22]. The use of screen-based media (SBM) was scored by summing the mean number of hours per day engaged in screen-based activities. Respondents´ behaviour was regarded as positive when they spent no more than two hours a day in front of the TV or PC screen.

Physical activity (PA) was defined as "any activity that raises your heart rate and which possibly leaves you out of breath". Respondents´ behaviour was regarded as negative if they did not meet the physical activity guideline (PAGL) (at least 60minutes of PA seven days a week). Participants were categorized as "not meeting PAGL" or "meeting PAGL" [23].

In order to assess the frequency of breakfast consumption during the week (Monday to Friday), respondents were asked to indicate how many days a week they had breakfast. Having breakfast five days a week was considered to be a positive health behaviour, while less frequent breakfasting was classed as "irregular breakfast habits".

Alcohol use was assessed by the question: "How often do you drink alcohol, such as beer or wine?". Responses were registered on a five-point scale. Infrequent drinking (rarely or never) was regarded as healthy behaviour, while other patterns were classed as unhealthy behaviour.

Respondents were regarded as suffering from multiple health complaints if they reported experiencing two or more symptoms "more than once a week" or "about every day" [24]. Respondents were assessed for eight symptoms on a five-point scale: difficulty in falling asleep, headache, feeling dizzy, stomach-ache, backache, depression, irritability or bad temper, and nervousness [25].

Self-reported health was assessed by means of a four-point scale; "fair" or "poor" perceptions were classed as "poor self-reported health" [19].

General life satisfaction was assessed by means of the Cantril ladder (1-10 points) [19]. Participants were shown a picture of a ladder and asked: "The top of the ladder (10) is the best possible life for you and the bottom (1) is the worst possible life. In general, where on the ladder do you feel you stand at the moment?". A score of 5 or less was taken to indicate dissatisfaction [19].

Independent variables

The independent variables used in the analysis were: family affluence, school environment, peer group, nutritional status and demographic size of the adolescent´s municipality of residence. These analyses were controlled for gender, as gender differences have been reported in the literature [26,27].

Socioeconomic status was evaluated by means of the FAS, Currie et al. have reported the scale´s characteristics and modality of use [19].

Principal-component analysis was used to calculate a one-dimensional representation of the school environment. The analysis considered six variables, three concerning scholastic activity - "feeling pressured by schoolwork (retrospectively recorded)", "academic achievement", "liking school" - and three concerning peer support - "students in my class like being together", "students in my class are kind and helpful" and "students in my class accept me for who I am". On summing the number of indicators, the resulting first major component corresponded to 33% of the overall variance. Saturations of individual variables ranged from 0.36, for "academic achievement", to 0.68, for "students in my class are kind and helpful". The new composite variable "school environment" was mainly representative of the three items on peer support, and considerably less so for the other three items ("liking school", "feeling pressured by schoolwork" and "academic achievement"). Lastly, the scores derived from the first component factor were recorded in a new categorical variable, "school environment", consisting of three categories: "favourable", "medium" and "poor".

The peer group indicator was used as a one-dimensional indicator which took into account both the frequency of peer contact and the size of the peer group. While the number of factors was limited to one, there were originally four variables: "time spent after school with friends", "number of close friends of the opposite gender", "electronic communications with friends" and "number of close friends of the same gender". From the total variance, 38% was assigned to the first main component extracted. The new composite variable "peer group" was mainly influenced by the size of the peer group (number of close friends), while "contact with peers" (electronically and after school) had less impact. Individual variables displayed saturations within a range of 0.30-0.80, where the lower end reflected "electronic communications" and the higher end reflected "number of close friends of the opposite gender". Moreover, the scores derived from the first component factor were recorded in a new categorical variable, "peer group", consisting of three categories: "favourable", "medium" and "poor".

Nutritional status

Self-reported weight and height were used to calculate Body Mass Index (BMI in kg/m2). We applied age- and gender- specific cut-offs, as recommended by the International Obesity Task Force [28,29]. Both underweight (U) and normal-weight (N) subjects were grouped into the "Under/Normal-weight" (UN) category, while both overweight (Ow) and obese (O) individuals constituted the "Overweight group" (Ow/O).

Demographic size of the adolescent´s municipality of residence

In order to determine the demographic size of the adolescents´ municipalities of residence, the samples were divided into four categories:<10,000 inhabitants; 10,000-50,000 inhabitants; >50,000 inhabitants, and >50,000 within a metropolitan area, according to the National Statistics Institute classification [30].

Statistical analysis

Analysis was carried out by means of the SPSS 20.0 statistical software package (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Binary logistic regression analysis was used to produce adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs and asymptotic, two-sided, statistical significance. Throughout this paper, statistical significance is defined by the conventional levels of P < 0.05 and P < 0.01.

Results

Data were obtained from a sample of 3,291 school students, 1,135 of whom were 11-year-olds (34.5%); 1,255 were 13-year-olds (38.1%), and 901 were 15-year-olds (27.4%).

The sample showed a high prevalence of unhealthy behaviours. Indeed, 22.0% of the students smoked, 84.7% used SBM for more than two hours a day, 91.6% reported physical inactivity and 34.5% skipped breakfast on weekdays (Table11). Moreover, 42.1% had multiple health complaints and 13.3% stated that they were dissatisfied with their lives (Table11).
Table 1

Unhealthy behaviours and health outcomes among Tuscan adolescents

 

N

%

Smoking

  

  Non-smokers

2551

(78.0)

  Smokers

720

(22.0)

  Total

3271

(100.0)

Screen-based media use

  

  <2hours a day

504

(15.3)

  ≥2hours a day

2783

(84.7)

  Total

3287

(100.0)

Physical activity

  

  60min 7days a week

275

(8.4)

 Less often

2982

(91.6)

 Total

3257

(100.0)

Breakfast on weekdays

  

  Five days a week

2126

(65.5)

  Less often

1121

(34.5)

  Total

3247

(100.0)

Alcohol consumption

  

  Never or rarely

2475

(76.2)

  Every day

774

(23.8)

  Total

3249

(100.0)

Multiple health complaints

  

  < 2 complaints more than once a week

1899

(57.9)

  ≥2 complaints more than once a week

1381

(42.1)

  Total

3280

(100.0)

Self-rated health

  

  Excellent or good

2957

(90.1)

  Fair or poor

324

(9.9)

  Total

3281

(100.0)

Life satisfaction

  

  Satisfied

2837

(86.7)

  Dissatisfied

437

(13.3)

  Total

3274

(100.0)

Table22 shows the independent variables. A total of 39.8% of respondents reported medium family affluence; 50.0% described their school environment as medium and 50.1% described their peer group as medium (Table22).
Table 2

Independent variables

Composite variables

n(%)

Total (100%)

Original variables

n(%)

Total (100%)

Family affluence

  

Family car

  

   High

1689 (52.5)

3217

   None

104 (3.2)

3271

   Medium

1279 (39.8)

 

   One

1044 (31.9)

 

   Low

249 (7.7)

 

   Two or more

2123 (64.9)

 
   

Own bedroom

  
   

   No

1130 (34.7)

3253

   

   Yes

2123 (65.3)

 
   

Holiday with family

  
   

   Not at all

298 (9.1)

3261

   

   Once

905 (27.8)

 
   

   Two or more times

1058 (63.1)

 
   

No. of computers

  
   

   None

55 (1.7)

3267

   

   One

1155 (35.4)

 
   

   Two or more

2057 (62.9)

 

School environment

  

Students like being together

  

   Favourable

809 (25.0)

3231

   Agree

2796 (85.3)

3276

   Medium

1615 (50.0)

 

   Undecided or disagree

480 (14.7)

 

   Poor

807 (25.0)

 

Students kind and helpful

  
   

   Agree

2093 (64.0)

3272

   

   Undecided or disagree

1179 (36.0)

 
   

Accepted by students

  
   

   Agree

2499 (76.5)

3267

   

   Undecided or disagree

768 (23.5)

 
   

Liking school

  
   

   A lot

2094 63.9)

3279

   

   Less than a lot

1185 (36.1)

 
   

Academic achievement

  
   

   Good or very good

1789 (54.7)

3269

   

   Average or below

1480 (45.3)

 
   

Pressured by schoolwork

  
   

   Not pressured

345 (10.5)

3277

   

   Pressured

2932 (89.5)

 

Peer group

  

Friends same gender

  

   Favourable

793 (24.8)

3195

   3 or more

2488 (75.9)

3279

   Medium

1600 (50.1)

 

   Up to 2

791 (24.1)

 

   Low

802 (25.1)

 

Friends different gender

  
   

   3 or more

1791 (55.3)

3241

   

   Up to 2

1450 (44.7)

 
   

After school with friends

  
   

   4 or more days a week

1266 (38.9)

3257

   

   3 or fewer days a week

1991 (61.1)

 
   

Electronic communication

  
   

   Every day

1857 (43.2)

3272

   

   Less often

1415 (56.8)

 

Non-composite variables

     

Municipality size

  

Gender

  

Metropolitan

806 (24.5)

3291

   Male

 

1702 (51.7) 3291

<10,000

456 (13.9)

 

   Female

 

1589 (48.3)

10,000-50,000

797 (24.2)

 

Nutritional status

  

>50,000

1232 (37.4)

 

Underweight

 

53 (2.0) 2640

   

Normal weight

 

2192 (83.0)

   

Overweight

 

342 (13.0)

   

   Obese

53 (2.0)

 

Differences in unhealthy behaviours

Table33 shows the results of multiple logistic models to associate unhealthy behaviours by age. On comparing high family affluence with medium and low family affluence, it emerged that the latter two associated with lower odds of regular drinking at age 15. Higher odds of irregular breakfast consumption at age 13 were associated with a low FAS. FAS was not significantly linked to any other negative health behaviour. Compared with a "favourable" school environment, "medium" and "poor" environments were associated with significantly higher odds of current smoking and irregular breakfasting at age 13. Moreover, the odds of smoking at age 15 and alcohol consumption at ages 13 and 15 were higher within "poor" school environments. On comparing a favourable peer group with medium and poor peer groups, the latter two proved to be associated with a significantly lower likelihood of smoking and sedentary lifestyle at age 13. "Poor" peer groups showed lower odds of leading a sedentary lifestyle at age 11, and with smoking and alcohol consumption at age 15. The data also displayed a gender difference, in that females drank alcohol less frequently than their male counterparts at 11 and 13years of age, and tended to have more irregular breakfast habits at ages 13 and 15. Females also proved to be less sedentary, but more prone to smoking, than males at age 15. On comparing overweight (Ow/O) with normal-weight subjects, the odds of physical inactivity were significantly higher at age 15. In terms of geographic location, associations were found only with regard to 11-year-olds; municipalities with less than 10,000 inhabitants and those with 10,000-50,000 inhabitants were associated with lower odds of physical inactivity, while metropolitan municipalities were associated with lower odds for alcohol abuse (Table33).
Table 3

Adjusted odds ratios with 95% CI: association of gender, family affluence, nutritional status, municipality size, school environment and peer group with unhealthy behaviours, by age

 

Smoking

Sedentary

Not meeting PAGL

Irregular breakfast

Alcohol daily

Age 11

     

Family affluence

     

   Medium vs. High

0.42 (0.14-1.27)

0.76 (0.53-1.07)

1.05 (0.61-1.79)

1.00 (0.69-1.47)

1.27 (0.68-2.37)

   Low vs. High

0.28 (0.03-2.40)

0.61 (0.35-1.08)

1.30 (0.48-3.55)

1.12 (0.60-2.09)

-

School environment

     

   Medium vs. Favourable

2.47 (0.63-9.83)

1.19 (0.83-1.70)

0.67 (0.39-1.17)

1.44 (0.96-2.18)

1.00 (0.50-1.98)

   Poor vs. Favourable

4.33 (0.97-19.3)

1.50 (0.91-2.46)

1.44 (0.61-3.43)

1.65 (0.99-2.77)

0.97 (0.39-2.40)

Peer groups

     

   Medium vs. Favourable

0.18 (0.05-0.64)**

0.74 (0.47-1.14)

1.43 (0.78-2.59)

0.51 (0.32-0.79)**

0.57 (0.26-1.26)

   Poor vs. Favourable

0.58 (0.18-1.89)

0.54 (0.33-0.91)*

1.40 (0.65-2.98)

1.12 (0.68-1.84)

1.58 (0.68-3.67)

Gender

     

   Female vs. Male

0.71 (0.25-2.02)

0.82 (0.59-1.14)

1.75 (1.03-2.98)**

1.22 (0.86-1.75)

0.15 (0.06-0.36)**

Nutritional status

     

   Ow/O vs. UN

2.25 (0.72-6.99)

1.51 (0.95-2.41)

1.44 (0.68-3.05)

1.18 (0.75-1.87)

1.12 (0.52-2.39)

Municipality size

     

   Metropolitan vs. >50,000

0.95 (0.20-4.46)

0.93 (0.61-1.43)

0.53 (0.26-1.07)

0.81 (0.51-1.28)

0.31 (0.12-0.79)**

   <10,000 vs. >50,000

2.56 (0.65-10.0)

0.81 (0.51-1.30)

0.43 (0.21-0.89)*

1.04 (0.64-1.71)

0.77 (0.34-1.70)

   10,000-50,000 vs. >50,000

2.20 (0.55-8.76)

0.77 (0.49-1.21)

0.42 (0.20-0.89)*

0.70 (0.42-1.16)

0.56 (0.23-1.40)

Age 13

     

Family affluence

     

   Medium vs. High

0.70 (0.48-1.02)

0.79 (0.49-1.27)

1.08 (0.61-1.89)

1.00 (0.76-1.34)

0.71 (0.50-1.01)

   Low vs. High

0.43 (0.14-1.25)

0.57 (0.22-1.46)

0.61 (0.20-1.84)

2.17 (1.12-4.19)*

0.66 (0.28-1.56)

School environment

     

   Medium vs. Favourable

2.37 (1.37-4.10)**

1.20 (0.68-2.12)

1.04 (0.55-1.99)

1.65 (1.15-2.37)**

1.55 (0.99-2.41)

   Poor vs. Favourable

4.34 (2.41-7.80)**

1.44 (0.73-2.84)

1.13 (0.52-2.44)

2.04 (1.35-3.09)**

1.79 (1.08-2.96)*

Peer groups

     

   Medium vs. Favourable

0.45 (0.30-0.67)**

0.29 (0.13-0.66)**

1.48 (0.81-2.69)

0.97 (0.69-1.34)

0.57 (0.39-0.84)**

   Poor vs. Favourable

0.48 (0.30-0.78)**

0.15 (0.06-0.35)**

1.62 (0.77-3.40)

0.90 (0.61-1.32)

0.91 (0.59-1.41)

Gender

     

   Female vs. Male

1.16 (0.81-1.66)

0.72 (0.45-1.15)

1.27 (0.75-2.16)

1.59 (1.20-2.10)**

0.71 (0.51-0.99)*

Nutritional status

     

   Ow/O vs. UN

1.18 (0.73-1.92)

1.37 (0.67-2.79)

2.50 (0.88-7.07)

1.38 (0.94-2.02)

1.31 (0.85-2.03)

Municipalities size

     

   Metropolitan vs. >50,000

1.27 (0.80-2.0)

1.28 (0.71-2.30)

0.96 (0.48-1.90)

0.93 (0.65-1.33)

1.04 (0.67-1.60)

   <10,000 vs. >50,000

1.10 (0.66-1.83)

1.09 (0.57-2.08)

2.82 (0.94-8.44)

0.76 (0.50-1.14)

1.04 (0.65-1.69)

   10,000-50,000 vs. >50,000

0.90 (0.55-1.46)

1.84 (0.97-3.48)

0.66 (0.35-1.25)

1.19 (0.83-1.71)

1.22 (0.80-1.87)

Age 15

     

Family affluence

     

   Medium vs. High

0.88 (0.65-1.19)

0.98 (0.56-1.71)

1.26 (0.74-2.15)

0.93 (0.68-1.26)

0.71 (0.52-0.96)*

   Low vs. High

0.92 (0.50-1.67)

0.91 (0.33-2.52)

5.0 (0.66-37.6)

1.80 (0.98-3.31)

0.54 (0.29-0.99)*

School environment

     

   Medium vs. Favourable

1.31 (0.87-1.97)

0.58 (0.25-1.34)

0.89 (0.45-1.79)

0.74 (0.49-1.13)

1.22 (0.81-1.85)

   Poor vs. Favourable

1.66 (1.07-2.59)*

0.79 (0.32-1.98)

1.27 (0.58-2.81)

1.15 (0.74-1.80)

1.66 (1.06-2.58)*

Peer groups

     

   Medium vs. Favourable

0.87 (0.61-1.23)

1.05 (0.55-2.03)

1.53 (0.85-2.74)

1.29 (0.90-1.83)

0.74 (0.52-1.04)

   Poor vs. Favourable

0.62 (0.42-0.93)*

1.08 (0.52-2.23)

1.26 (0.65-2.45)

1.00 (0.67-1.49)

0.53 (0.36-0.79)**

Gender

     

   Female vs. Male

1.49 (1.11-1.99)**

0.45 (0.26-0.80)**

2.05 (1.20-3.50)**

1.65 (1.23-2.22)**

0.82 (0.62-1.10)

Nutritional status

     

   Ow/O vs. UN

1.02 (0.66-1.57)

2.77 (0.84-9.11)

5.59 (1.34-23.4)*

1.42 (0.92-2.19)

0.76 (0.49-1.17)

Municipality size

     

   Metropolitan vs. >50.000

1.02 (0.71-1.48)

0.59 (0.30-1.18)

0.99 (0.52-1.88)

0.87 (0.59-1.26)

1.36 (0.94-1.97)

   <10,000 vs. >50,000

0.89 (0.43-1.83)

0.94 (0.20-4.29)

1.04 (0.29-3.73)

0.72 (0.34-1.52)

0.88 (0.43-1.82)

   10,000-50,000 vs. >50,000

1.21 (0.86-1.70)

0.59 (0.31-1.12)

0.99 (0.54-1.82)

0.97 (0.68-1.37)

1.13 (0.80-1.60)

Multivariate binary logistic regression *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

Ow/O: Overweight group (overweight and obesity); UN: Under/Normal-weight group.

Differences in health outcomes

In comparison with high-income families, medium-income families displayed higher odds of poor self-reported health at age 15 and lower life satisfaction at age 11. In low-income families, dissatisfaction with life was greater in the 13- and 15-year age-groups. With regard to school environments, 11- and 13-year-old respondents from "medium" and "poor" environments displayed higher odds of poor health outcomes on all three health measures than those from "favourable" environments. Moreover, at age 15, the odds of poor self-reported health and life dissatisfaction were higher in "poor" school environments. Health outcomes did not display peer group influence. Gender seemed to be a determining factor in poor self-reported health, with higher odds among male participants of all ages. However, females reported more health complaints at ages 13 and 15 and greater life dissatisfaction at age 13 than their male counterparts. Comparison between overweight and normal-weight participants revealed higher odds of poor self-reported health at ages 13 and 15 among the overweight. With regard to the demographic size of the municipalities of residence, smaller municipalities displayed higher odds of poor self-reported health at age 13 (Table44).
Table 4

Adjusted odds ratios with 95% CI: association of gender, family affluence, nutritional status, municipality size, school environment and peer group with health outcomes, by age

 

Multiple health complaints

Poor self-reported health

Life dissatisfaction

Age 11

   

Family affluence

   

   Medium vs. High

1.24 (0.90-1.70)

0.72 (0.37-1.40)

1.78 (1.06-2.98)*

   Low vs. High

1.33 (0.78-2.26)

1.64 (0.66-4.09)

1.73 (0.77-3.86)

School environment

   

   Medium vs. Favourable

1.37 (0.98-1.93)

3.0 (1.30-6.93)**

2.13 (1.16-3.92)**

   Poor vs. Favourable

1.90 (1.22-2.95)**

4.29 (1.67-11.0)**

4.24 (2.14-8.38)**

Peer group

   

   Medium vs. Favourable

0.95 (0.64-1.40)

1.58 (0.63-4.0)

1.14 (0.59-2.21)

   Poor vs. Favourable

1.29 (0.81-2.03)

1.60 (0.58-4.40)

1.33 (0.64-2.76)

Gender

   

   Female vs. Male

1.24 (0.92-1.68)

2.91 (1.52-5.58)**

1.21 (0.75-1.96)

Nutritional status

   

   Ow/O vs. UN

0.95 (0.63-1.41)

1.57 (0.77-3.19)

1.21 (0.68-2.14)

Municipality size

   

   Metropolitan vs. >50,000

0.83 (0.56-1.23)

0.66 (0.28-1.54)

0.52 (0.27-1.00)

   <10,000 vs. >50,000

1.40 (0.92-2.14)

1.05 (0.44-2.51)

1.02 (0.54-1.92)

   10,000-50,000 vs. >50,000

1.12 (0.74-1.72)

1.18 (0.53-2.62)

0.63 (0.32-1.23)

Age 13

   

Family affluence

   

   Medium vs. High

0.95 (0.71-1.26)

0.79 (0.48-1.29)

1.26 (0.83-1.92)

   Low vs. High

0.98 (0.50-1.91)

1.87 (0.75-4.70)

3.34 (1.53-7.31)**

School environment

   

   Medium vs. Favourable

2.38 (1.65-3.45)**

3.86 (1.49-10.03)**

3.15 (1.51-6.56)**

   Poor vs. Favourable

4.46 (2.91-6.82)**

9.56 (3.66-25.02)**

7.63 (3.60-16.15)**

Peer group

   

   Medium vs. Favourable

0.98 (0.70-1.36)

0.93 (0.51-1.69)

1.26 (0.73-2.15)

   Poor vs. Favourable

0.96 (0.65-1.42)

1.18 (0.63-2.23)

1.59 (0.90-2.83)

Gender

   

   Female vs. Male

2.37 (1.79-3.13)**

2.17 (1.33-3.53)**

3.18 (2.04-4.96)**

Nutritional status

   

   Ow/O vs. UN

1.39 (0.94-2.04)

1.83 (1.03-3.26)*

1.24 (0.71-2.17)

Municipality size

   

   Metropolitan vs. >50,000

1.07 (0.74-1.53)

1.04 (0.51-2.09)

1.51 (0.88-2.57)

   <10,000 vs. >50,000

0.87 (0.58-1.30)

1.99 (1.02-3.91)*

1.34 (0.73-2.45)

   10,000-50,000 vs. >50,000

0.89 (0.62-1.28)

2.13 (1.16-3.92)**

1.28 (0.74-2.21)

Age 15

   

Family affluence

   

   Medium vs. High

0.90 (0.66-1.24)

1.62 (1.04-2.52)*

1.11 (0.72-1.17)

   Low vs. High

0.99 (0.54-1.84)

0.92 (0.36-2.37)

2.41 (1.18-4.95)**

School environment

   

   Medium vs. Favourable

0.87 (0.56-1.33)

1.45 (0.68-3.12)

0.91 (0.44-1.86)

   Poor vs. Favourable

1.56 (0.98-2.47)

2.72 (1.26-5.87)**

3.43 (1.72-6.85)**

Peer group

   

   Medium vs. Favourable

1.29 (0.90-1.84)

0.79 (0.646-1.35)

0.97 (0.57-1.64)

   Poor vs. Favourable

1.17 (0.78-1.76)

1.01 (0.57-1.78)

1.54 (0.89-2.66)

Gender

   

   Female vs. male

3.43 (2.54-4.65)**

2.50 (1.57-3.96)**

1.41 (0.92-2.15)

Nutritional status

   

   Ow/O vs. UN

1.47 (0.94-2.31)

2.81 (1.63-4.83)**

1.51 (0.86-2.65)

Municipality size

   

   Metropolitan vs. >50,000

1.08 (0.74-1.59)

1.33 (0.75-2.37)

1.08 (0.56-1.85)

   <10,000 vs. >50,000

1.18 (0.56-2.51)

1.59 (0.54-4.64)

1.11 (0.36-3.42)

   10,000-50,000 vs. >50,000

1.11 (0.77-1.58)

1.66 (1.00-2.76)

1.00 (0.61-1.63)

Multivariate binary logistic regression *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

Ow/O: Overweight group (overweight and obesity); UN: Under/Normal-weight group.

Discussion

This study examined the impact of some of the most prominent factors influencing the health of adolescents, i.e. socioeconomic status, school environment and peer group. Inequalities exerting a direct impact on unhealthy behaviour were found to be associated more with the "peer group" and "school environment", than with SES. Unhealthy behaviours were associated with a negative school environment, a finding which confirmed the initial hypothesis. Similarly, health outcomes proved to be more closely linked to "school surroundings" than to "peer group" and "family affluence". With regard to health outcomes, the findings only partially supported the initial hypothesis, as we observed a correlation with the school environment, but not with the peer group.

Differences in unhealthy behaviours

Previous studies have described the impact of school environment and peer group influence on unhealthy behaviours among adolescents [10,11]. Unlike the findings of some studies [7,18], our results suggest that the role of the peer group and the school environment is more prominent than that of family affluence in determining risky health behaviours such as smoking and alcohol abuse. As age increases, the influence of the family on adolescents declines, while that of peers increases. In accordance with the literature [31], we found that being overweight was associated with low levels of physical activity (not meeting PAGL), especially among 15-year-olds, and with high values of poor self-reported health at 13 and 15years of age [32]. Again in agreement with the literature, we also observed that living in smaller municipalities was associated with a higher risk of failing to meet the physical activity guideline (at 11years of age) and of having poor self-reported health (at 13years) [32].

Inequalities in health outcomes

Socioeconomic conditions, school environment and peer group all seem to play a role in causing inequalities in health. However, while all three measures of poor health outcomes were directly related to a negative school environment, they displayed no correlation with the peer group. This result is in line with previous research. The findings of previous studies [19,33] were also confirmed on comparing high- and low-income families, in that the latter were associated with higher odds of poor self-reported health and life dissatisfaction. In contrast with previous reports [24,34], however, our findings did not reveal an apparent socioeconomic gradient in multiple health complaints. From our study, it emerged that boys enjoyed a considerable advantage over girls in terms of health status, which confirms the results reported in the literature [26,35]. Nevertheless, among both males and females, both unhealthy behaviours and poor health status were associated with a poor school environment.

An important limitation of our study is that we could not ascertain parents´ habits, which are known to be very important in shaping children´s personal identity [36] and health habits [37,38]. Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that the data collected in this survey were self-reported by participants, and that self-reporting may introduce some errors which could influence the statistical relationships. This suggests that the actual relationships between the variables considered in the study might be distorted. However, the large sample size and the fairly consistent trend in results across the various municipalities suggest that the effects observed are solid. Nevertheless, further studies on other samples will be needed in order to confirm and generalise these results.

Our findings highlight the need for a wide-ranging strategy of intervention in low-income categories. Such intervention should focus both on reducing socioeconomic disparities in adolescents´ health and on improving students´ social position within the peer group and school entourage.

It is essential to involve schools in the design of programmes to promote healthy lifestyles. The main objective of health promotion in schools should not simply be to draw up a curriculum that promotes healthy choices, but rather to organise coherent pedagogical practices that promote critical thinking, a sense of belonging, self-esteem and the feeling of being part of a supportive society, thereby helping adolescents to acquire the skills needed to act in the community.

Authors´ contributions

GL conceptualized and designed the study, interpreted the results, wrote the manuscript and approved the final manuscript as submitted; EA collaborated in interpreting the data and preparing the manuscript; AP performed statistical analyses; RS collaborated in organizing data collection and input, and in preparing the manuscript; VM collaborated in preparing the manuscript; MVG collaborated in the final review of the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Abbreviations

WHO: 

World Health Organization

SES: 

Socioeconomic Status

FAS: 

Family Affluence Scale

HBSC: 

Health Behaviour in School-aged Children

SBM: 

Screen-Based Media

PA: 

Physical Activity

PAGL: 

Physical Activity Guideline

BMI: 

Body Mass Index

U: 

Underweight

N: 

Normal-weight

Ow: 

Overweight

O: 

Obesity

Ow/O: 

Overweight including Obesity

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by grants from the Region of Tuscany (Resolution No. 800 of 13/10/2008 Gaining Health in Tuscany: facilitating healthy choices).

The authors wish to thank the Authorities of the Regional Health System, the Local Health Authorities and the Schools.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
CREPS-Research for Health Education and Promotion, University of Siena Italy
(2)
Department of Molecular and Developmental Medicine, University of Siena Italy
(3)
Department of Public Health, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart
(4)
Local Health

References

  1. European Contribution for the High-level meeting of the UN General Assembly to undertake the comprehensive review and assessment of the 2011 Political Declaration on NCDs 2014.., [http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/173651/RC62rs04-Health-2020-ENG.pdf]
  2. Woodward M, Oliphant J, Lowe G, Tunstall-Pedoe H: Contribution of contemporaneous risk factors to social inequality in coronary heart disease and all causes mortality. Prev Med. 2003, 36 (Suppl 5): 561-568. 10.1016/S0091-7435(03)00010-0.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. van Oort FV, van Lenthe FJ, Mackenbach JP: Material, psychosocial, and behavioural factors in the explanation of educational inequalities in mortality in The Netherlands. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005, 59 (3): 214-220. 10.1136/jech.2003.016493.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Laaksonen M, Talala K, Martelin T, Rahkonen O, Roos E, Helakorpi S, Laatikainen T, Prattala R: Health behaviours as explanations for educational level differences in cardiovascular and all-cause mortality: a follow-up of 60 000 men and women over 23years. Eur J Public Health. 2008, 18 (Suppl 1): 38-43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Schrijvers C, Stronks K, Mheen HV, Mackenbach JP: Explaining educational differences in mortality: the role of behavioral and material factors. Am J Public Health. 1999, 89: 535-540. 10.2105/AJPH.89.4.535.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Pekkanen J, Tuomilehto J, Uutela A, Vartiainen E, Nissinen A: Social class, health behaviour, and mortality among men and women in eastern Finland. BMJ. 1995, 311 (7005): 589-593. 10.1136/bmj.311.7005.589.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Richter M, Leppin A, Nic Gabhainn S: The relationship between parental socio-economic status and episodes of drunkenness among adolescents: findings from a cross-national survey. BMC Public Health. 2006, 6: 289. 10.1186/1471-2458-6-289.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Tuinstra J, Groothoff JW, van den Heuvel WJ, Post D: Socio-economic differences in health risk behavior in adolescence: do they exist?. Soc Sci Med. 1998, 47: 67-74. 10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00034-3.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. West P: Health inequalities in the early years: is there equalisation in youth?. Soc Sci Med. 1997, 44: 833-858. 10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00188-8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Vereecken CA, Maes L, De Bacquer D: The influence of parental occupation and the pupils´ educational level on lifestyle behaviours among adolescents in Belgium. J Adolesc Health. 2004, 34: 330-338. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2003.07.011.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Richter M, Leppin A: Trends in socio-economic differences in tobacco smoking among German schoolchildren, 1994-2002. Eur J Public Health. 2007, 17: 565-571. 10.1093/eurpub/ckm010.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Madarasova Geckova A, Stewart R, van Dijk JP, Orosová O, Groothoff JW, Post D: Influence of socioeconomic status, parents and peers on smoking behaviour of adolescents. Eur Addict Res. 2005, 11 (Suppl 4): 204-209. 10.1159/000086403.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Mackenbach JP, Bakker MJ: Tackling socioeconomic inequalities in health: analysis of European experiences. Lancet. 2003, 362 (9393): 1409-1414. 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14639-9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Ravens-Sieberer U, Kokonyei G, Thomas C: School and health. Young people´s Health in Context - Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC) Study: International Report from the 2001/02 Survey. Edited by: Currie C, Roberts C, Morgan A. 2004, WHO-Europe, KopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  15. Vuille JC, Schenkel M: Social equalization in the health of youth. The role of the school. Eur J Public Health. 2001, 11: 287-293. 10.1093/eurpub/11.3.287.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. ter Bogt T, Schmid H, Gabhainn SN, Fotiou A, Vollebergh W: Economic and cultural correlates of cannabis use among mid-adolescents in 31 countries. Addiction. 2006, 101 (2): 241-251. 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01309.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Settertobulte W, de Matos Gaspar M: Peers and health. Young people´s Health in Context - Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC) Study: International Report from the 2001/02 Survey. Edited by: Currie C, Roberts C, Morgan A. 2004, WHO-Europe, KopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  18. Currie C, Molcho M, Boyce W, Holstein B, Torsheim T, Richter M: Researching health inequalities in adolescents: the development of the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) family affluence scale. Soc Sci Med. 2008, 66 (Suppl 6): 1429-1436. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.11.024.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Currie C, Grieber R, Inchley J: Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC) Study Protocol: Background, Methodology and Mandatory Items for the 2009/10 Survey. 2010, CAHRU, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  20. Lazzeri G, Giacchi MV, Dalmasso P: The methodology of the Italian HBSC 2010 study (Health Behaviour in School-aged Children). Ann Ig. 2013, 25 (Suppl 3): 225-233.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Schmitz KH, Harnack L, Fulton JE, Jacobs DR, Gao S, Lytle LA, van Coevering P: Reliability and validity of a brief questionnaire to assess television viewing and computer use by middle school children. J School Health. 2004, 74 (Suppl 9): 370-377. 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb06632.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Utter J, Neumark-Sztainer D, Jeffery R, Story M: Couch potatoes or french fries: are sedentary behaviors associated with body mass index, physical activity, and dietary behaviors among adolescents?. J Am Diet Assoc. 2003, 103: 1298-1305. 10.1016/S0002-8223(03)01079-4.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Report. 2008, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Simetin IP, Kuzman M, Franelic IP, Pristas I, Benjak T, Dezljin JD: Inequalities in Croatian pupils´ unhealthy behaviours and health outcomes: role of school, peers and family affluence. Eur J Public Health. 2010, 1: 122-128.Google Scholar
  25. Haugland S, Wold B: Subjective health complaints in adolescence - Reliability and validity of survey methods. J Adolesc. 2001, 24: 611-624. 10.1006/jado.2000.0393.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Cavallo F, Zambon A, Borraccino A, Raven-Sieberer U, Torsheim T, Lemma P: Girls growing through adolescence have a higher risk of poor health. Qual Life Res. 2006, 15 (Suppl 10): 1577-1585. 10.1007/s11136-006-0037-5.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Lazzeri G, Pammolli A, Simi R, Pilato V, Giacchi M: BMI from nutritional surveillance of 8-9 years old children in Tuscany (Italy). J Prev Med Hyg. 2011, 52 (Suppl 4): 181-185.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Cole TJ, Bellizzi MC, Flegal KM, Dietz WH: Establishing a standard definition for child overweight and obesity worldwide: international survey. BMJ. 2000, 320: 1240-1243. 10.1136/bmj.320.7244.1240.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Cole TJ, Flegal KM, Nicholls D, Jackson AA: Body mass index cut offs to define thinness in children and adolescents: international survey. BMJ. 2007, 335: 194-197. 10.1136/bmj.39238.399444.55.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. ISTAT Codici dei comuni, delle province e delle regioni 2008, Italy.., [http://www.istat.it/strumenti/definizioni/comuni/]
  31. Haug E, Rasmussen M, Samdal O, Iannotti R, Kelly C, Borraccino A, Vereecken C, Melkevik O, Lazzeri G, Giacchi M, Ercan O, Due P, Ravens-Sieberer U, Holstein B, Aasvee K, Valimaa R, Godeau E, Ottova V, Kokkev A, Fotiou A, Niclasen B, Nemeth A, Unak K, Cavallo F, Dalmasso P, Rossi S, Baldassari D, ter Bogt T, Torsheim T, Kololo H: Overweight in school-aged children and its relationship with demographic and lifestyle factors: Results from the WHO-Collaborative Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) Study. Int J Public Health. 2009, 54 (Suppl 2): 167-179. 10.1007/s00038-009-5408-6.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Currie C, Gabhainn SN, Godeau E, Roberts C, Smith R, Currie D, Picket W, Richter M, Morgan , Barnekow V: Inequalities in Young people´s Health: HBSC International Report from the 2005/2006 Survey. 2008, Copenhagen, WHO Regional Office for EuropeGoogle Scholar
  33. Torsheim T, Currie C, Boyce W, Kalnins I, Overpeck M, Haugland S: Material deprivation and self-rated health: a multilevel study of adolescents from 22 European and North American countries. Soc Sci Med. 2004, 59: 1-12. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.09.032.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Koivusilta LK, Rimpela AH, Kautiainen SM: Health inequality in adolescence. Does stratification occur by familial social background, family affluence, or personal social position?. BMC Public Health. 2006, 6: 110. 10.1186/1471-2458-6-110.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Torsheim T, Ravens-Sieberer U, Hetland J, Valimaa R, Danielson M, Overpeck M: Cross-national variation of gender differences in adolescent subjective health in Europe and North America. Soc Sci Med. 2006, 62 (Suppl 4): 815-827. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.06.047.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Bourdieu P: Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. 1984, Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Hellandsjø Bu E, Watten RG, Foxcroft D, Ingebrigtsen JE, Relling G: Teenage alcohol and intoxication debut: the impact of family socialization factors, living area and participation in organized sports. Alcohol & Alcoholism. 2002, 37: 74-80. 10.1093/alcalc/37.1.74.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Ausems M, Mesters I, Van Breukelen G, De Vries H: Do Dutch 11-12 years old who never smoke, smoke experimentally or smoke regularly have different demographic backgrounds and perceptions of smoking?. Eur J Public Health. 2003, 13: 160-167. 10.1093/eurpub/13.2.160.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Lazzeri et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.