Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Key health promotion factors among male members of staff at a higher educational institution: A cross-sectional postal survey

  • Alena Vasianovich1Email author,
  • Edwin R van Teijlingen1,
  • Garth Reid1 and
  • Neil W Scott1
BMC Public Health20088:58

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-58

Received: 15 March 2007

Accepted: 12 February 2008

Published: 12 February 2008

Abstract

Background

Men's lifestyles are generally less healthy than women's. This study identifies associations between health-related behaviour in different groups of men working in a Higher Education (HE) institution. In addition, men were asked whether they regarded their health-related behaviours as a concern. This article highlights smoking, consumption of alcohol and physical activity as most common men's health-related lifestyle behaviours.

Methods

A descriptive cross-sectional survey was conducted among all male staff employed by a Higher Education institute in Scotland using a postal self-completed questionnaire. A total of 1,335 questionnaires were distributed and 501 were returned completed (38% return rate). The data were analysed using SPSS 13.0 for Windows.

Results

Less than 10% currently smoked and almost 44% of these smokers were light smokers. Marital status, job title, consumption of alcohol and physical activity level were the major factors associated with smoking behaviour. Men in manual jobs were far more likely to smoke. Nearly all (90%) consumed alcohol, and almost 37% had more than recommended eight units of alcohol per day at least once a week and 16% had more than 21 units weekly. Younger men reported higher amount of units of alcohol on their heaviest day and per week. Approximately 80% were physically active, but less than 40% met the current Government guidelines for moderate physical activity. Most men wanted to increase their activity level.

Conclusion

There are areas of health-related behaviour, which should be addressed in populations of this kind. Needs assessment could indicate which public health interventions would be most appropriately aimed at this target group. However, the low response rate calls for some caution in interpreting our findings.

Background

Men's health is poor compared to women's according to a range of measures and varies across ethnicity and socio-economic class [1]. In 2003–05 the average life expectancy at birth of females born in the UK was 80 years compared to about 76 years for males [2]. Men are more likely than women to be mentally ill and they are in greater risk of heart disease and stroke; men in routine and manual jobs are more likely to smoke and have chronic health problems than other men; diagnoses of both prostate and testicular cancer have increased since the early 1990s [1]. The suicide rate amongst young men has increased by 250% over the past two decades [1]. Slightly more than 60% of men are overweight or obese; however, between the ages of 15 and 64 men attend their GP practice almost half as often as women [3]. More generally, men in Scotland have one of the poorest health records in Europe [4]. Life expectancy for Scottish males was the lowest in the four countries of the UK in 2005 (69.3 vs. 79) [5].

Smoking, lack of physical activity and alcohol consumption are among the key lifestyle factors identified in the Government's White Paper as contributing towards poor health and early death [6] and they need to be improved [7]. The latest Scottish Health Survey 2003 (SHS) reported separately the results for men and women [8]. Although, not enough research has been conducted in the field of men's health promotion [911].

Tobacco use

Smoking prevalence amongst men in Scotland is around 28% [12]. Approximately 13,000 Scots die every year from smoking-related illness [7, 13, 14]. The importance attached by the Government to reducing levels of smoking is emphasised by the publication of two White Papers: 'Smoking Kills', which sets out the actions to be taken throughout the UK to reduce smoking, and 'Towards a Healthier Scotland', which focuses on specific targets for Scotland [15]. There is evidence that male smokers are more likely to be heavy drinkers [16].

Alcohol use

Alcohol consumption contributes to a wide range of health and social problems, including liver cirrhosis, pancreatitis, cancer, suicide, accidents, and antisocial behaviours [17]. However, alcohol consumption is an established part of Scottish culture, with 27% of men reported usual alcohol consumption in excess of the recommended limit of 21 units per week (a unit refers to half a pint of normal strength beer, a small glass of wine, or a single measure of spirits) [6]. In terms of daily consumption, regular drinking of 4 or more units a day for men is likely to result in increasing health risk and is not advised [6]. There is no significant health risk for adults who regularly consume less than these amounts, though official advice also includes two alcohol-free days a week [6]. Although there is no standard definition of 'binge' drinking it is typically defined as drinking more than double the recommended daily limit on any one day. The Scottish Executive's 'Plan for action on alcohol' stated clearly its overall purpose such as to reduce alcohol-related harm in Scotland [6].

Physical activity

Levels of physical activity are decreasing [18]. The importance of physical activity and its contribution towards health improvement was recognised by the Government [13]. It sets out plans for a National Physical Activity Strategy for Scotland, to encourage people of all ages to participate more in physical activity. Physical activity protects against a range of diseases including obesity [19]. Men spend a considerable amount of their time working and different jobs/work environments can have different effects on their health and health-related behaviour [20], The World Health Organization (WHO) rated physical inactivity as one of the main causes of death in developed countries, and estimated that it is partly responsible for a range of disease such as coronary heart disease, colon and breast cancer, diabetes and stroke [21]. In Scotland, it has been estimated that an increase of 5% in the proportion of adults participating in physical activity could prevent 157 premature deaths over five years [19]. Taking into account all these evidence, the promotion of physical activity has been described as 'public health's best buy' [6]. The Scottish Executive highlighted the importance of physical activity in improving the nation's health in its 2003 publication 'Improving Health in Scotland – the Challenge' [7]. The current Scottish guideline for physical activity for adults is at least 30 minutes of moderate activity on at least 5 days a week [7]. A questionnaire study on leisure time physical activity, other health-related behaviour, social relationships, and health status showed that persistent physical inactivity is associated with a less healthy lifestyle, worse educational progression, and poor self perceived health [22].

Men's lifestyle

The choices men make about their behaviour and especially about their consumption of food, alcohol, tobacco and/or physical activity have economic and cultural dimensions. The relationship between socio-economic factors and different health-related behaviour (lifestyle) has long been realised [23]. Despite this, many men need encouragement to consider their own health and to understand the impact of the lifestyle choices they have made [23]. The impact of socio-economic differences on two basic kind of health-related behaviour defined as health behaviour (HB) and risk behaviour (RB) have been illustrated [24]. Risk behaviour refers to behaviour considered to be a risk to health status such as smoking and alcohol consumption. While HB such as physical activity refers to behaviour considered to be health-promoting. HB is demonstrated by individuals considering themselves to be healthy and is directed toward the prevention of illness [23]. Both, health and risk behaviour, have had an association with education, socio-economics status and gender [24].

The importance of gender and its influence on health had led to an increasing interest in gender-specific fields worldwide [25]. The trend has been a move away from basic research on sex and gender differences to new strategies of public health and health promotion, targeting men of all ages and with different risk factors [26]. As some authors summarised [27], men are more likely than women to smoke, drink or use illegal drugs. However, the comparisons made are based on the gender differences between men and women, but these do not explore the differences that may exist among men [27, 28]. In the light of the above, the Scottish Government recently invested ˆ4 million into projects to reach men; whose death rates for cancer and coronary diseases are among the highest in the world [29].

This study aims to explore associations between health-related behaviour such as smoking, alcohol use and physical activity, as the most common elements of men's lifestyle, in different groups of men working in Higher Education (HE) on the basis of socio-economics and demographic factors.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey, using a postal self-completed questionnaire, investigated aspects of men's health-related behaviours [30, 31]. The questionnaire is listed as an Appendix (Additional file 1). The survey had a clear descriptive purpose as a way of studying social conditions, relationships and behaviour [32]. The target population was men aged 18 years and over working at a Scottish Higher Educational institution.

Key features of the questionnaire were: health-related behaviour on the basis of having health check-up, blood pressure and cholesterol measurement with knowledge about their level; smoking status and number of cigarettes; alcohol consumption, frequency of drinking and amount of alcohol; physical activity level, having recent stress; health/lifestyle concerns or worries; attitude towards health-related habits by asking participants if they would like to change their habits and possible ways of changing. The questions about alcohol, for example, were taken from the Well Men Services Project questionnaire and included questions about type, frequency and amount of alcohol intake in an average week and on day of highest intake [33]. The number of drinks men consumed was then computed and transformed into units according to existing norms used in the 2003 SHS [8]. The daily benchmark limit for men is four units, where a 25 ml measure of spirits is considered to be a unit, a standard glass of wine is 2 units and a pint of strong lager is three units [8]. We also categorised weekly alcohol intake into three categories based on previous studies: 'safe' (less than or equal to 21 units), 'hazardous' (22–49 units) and 'dangerous' (more than 50 units per week) [8]. For some analyses this variable was transformed into a new binary variable: yes-men who met the current guidelines and consumed less than or equal to 21 units of alcohol per week; no-men who have not met current guidelines for weekly drinking limit (more than 21 units per week).

Smoking status was defined into three categories (non-smoker; ex-smoker; current smoker). This variable was also recoded into a binary variable (smoker vs. non-smoker plus ex-smoker). The number of cigarettes was also categorised on the basis of number of cigarettes smoked per day (light smokers – less or equal to 10; medium smokers 11–15; heavy smokers more than 16). Attitudes towards smoking were presented in three groups: men who would like to keep smoking; those who would like to quit and men who would like to cut down the amount of cigarettes smoked.

Men were asked whether their physical activity meets the current guidelines, which we categorised as: yes – have met the current guidelines and no – have not met [7]. Particularly this variable has been used for the future statistical analysis.

Our questionnaire also included questions about socio-economic and demographic factors such as age, educational level and occupational status. Age was defined in completed years and was used in the statistical analysis to avoid loss of information and statistical power; but a new categorical variable (age banded) was recoded towards to aid additional statistical analysis. To assist the Logistic Regression (LR) analysis some variables had to be recoded. For instance, ethnicity was recoded into two variables: (1) 'White British or European'; and (2) 'Other' that have included Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Black African & Caribbean/any mixed background. We present job title using ten different categories (see Additional file 1), the category 'other' included non-manual jobs such as manager, librarian, research director, or medical illustrator. This variable was also recoded into fewer categories for the LR.

Validated questions were taken from the Scottish Health Survey (SHS) 2003 [8], and the Grampian [34], Liverpool [35] and Tayside [36] lifestyle surveys. In this study most of the questions were close-ended and specifically designed to be analysed, not as individual items of information, but as part of indices which represent general orientations and beliefs expressed in different contexts. Only two questions were open-ended with the respondents invited to reply in their own words and an additional box was provided at the end of the questionnaire for comments. The survey questionnaire was designed "to collect reliable, valid and unbiased data from a representative sample, in a timely manner and within given resource constraints" [37]. After piloting [38], 1,344 questionnaires were sent to internal mail addresses of all male members of staff at the HE institution (study participants). Access to them was given through the Personnel Department, which sent out the questionnaire on our behalf to all men working at the university at the time of the study. A written explanation of the study was given in the cover letter and on the questionnaire. Returning the completed questionnaire was taken as consent to participate in study. The anonymous questionnaires were returned to the authors in a pre-addressed envelope.

Statistical Analysis

Data were analysed using SPSS 13.0 for Windows. The testing of associations was conducted using tests of significance, i.e. parametric (one way t-test, ANOVA) and non-parametric tests (Chi-squared test, Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis). Univariate analysis (Chi-squared test) was used to explore the associations between categorical variables (lifestyle). Logistic Regression (LR) analysis was used to investigate several variables of interest simultaneously. Associations between lifestyles and socio-economic and demographic factors were evaluated by Odds Ratios (OR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) derived from logistic regression. Several new binary variables were created and recoded before they were entered in the regression model. For all statistical tests a p-value of < 0.05 (shown in bold) was taken to be statistically significant [39].

Ethical approval

As this study did not include research on NHS patients nor took place on NHS premises no ethical approval was needed from the Local Research Ethics Committee, as the HE in question does not have its own ethical review board no formal ethical approval could be obtained. The questionnaire was approved by the Personnel Department and was piloted before hand. Care has been taken to apply the Helsinki principles of ethical research to this study [40], e.g. the researcher did not have access to the names and addresses of staff and all questionnaires were returned anonymously.

Results

Five hundred and ten questionnaires were returned; nine were invalid. As a result, 501 were presented for analysis out of 1,335 sent (response rate 38%). The mean (44.9) and median (45.0) age were very similar and the age of respondents ranged from 19 to 68 (SD 11.0). All respondents provided information on marital status. The majority (77 %) was married or lived with a partner. Nearly all (94%) described themselves as White; almost eight out of ten had a university degree, nearly all had a full-time post (89 %), sixty percent had an academic (research/teaching) job title and 74% had a permanent contract. More than half (58 %) had managerial or supervisory responsibilities. Table 1 shows the key demographic and socio-economic factors of respondents.
Table 1

Demographic and socio-economic characteristics of men (n = 501)

Factors

number

percentage

Age

24 and under

16

3

25–33

55

11

34–42

131

26

43–50

118

24

51–59

131

26

60 and over

50

10

Marital status

Single

94

19

Married/living with partner

386

77

Separate/divorced

21

4

Ethnic origin

White/British or European

469

94

Asian/Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi

9

2

Chinese

8

2

Other South Asian

5

1

Black African

3

< 1

Any mixed background & other

7

1

Educational/Professional qualifications

No qualifications

26

5

Standard/O-grades/GCSEs

19

4

Higher/A levels

9

2

Vocational/Further education

53

11

University undergraduate degree

76

15

University postgraduate degree

318

64

Job description

Full time

447

89

Shift work

18

4

Part time

34

7

Contract description

Permanent

369

74

Short term/less then 1 year

15

3

Fixed term

60

12

1–4 years

51

10

Other

6

1

Job title

Professor/reader

81

16

Lecturer/senior lecturer

127

25

Research fellow

59

12

Research assistant

13

3

Teaching fellow/assistant

22

4

Administrative staff

39

8

Support secretarial

11

2

Support technical

51

10

Support manual

44

9

Other

54

11

Line management or supervisory responsibilities

Yes

292

58

Smoking

Approximately one in ten, 47 (9 %) respondents currently smoked and 125 (25%) were ex-smokers. There was no statistically significant difference in mean age between smokers, non-smokers and ex-smokers [F (2; 498) = 1.2, p = 0.3]. Current smokers (n = 47) were asked about the number of cigarettes, roll ups or pipes they smoked per day. Twenty men (44%) were light smokers, twelve (24%) were medium smokers and fifteen (32%) were heavy smokers. Younger men (25–33 years) were more likely to be heavy smokers (36%), however, this difference was not statistically significant [χ2 (10) = 15.220; p = 0.12]. Single men (8, 53%) smoked more cigarettes than married men or those living with partner (6, 40%), [χ2 (4) = 9.4, p = 0.05]. According to the LR model, marital status, job title, alcohol consumption and physical activity level were statistically significantly associated with smoking status (Table 2).
Table 2

Association between smoking, demographic, socio-economic & lifestyle characteristics (n = 501)

Factors (b)

Smoking status

χ2-test

Logistic Regression

 

smoker (n = 47)

non-smoker (n = 454)(a)

    
 

n

%

n

%

Unadjusted p value

Adjusted p value

OR(c)

95% CI

Age

     

0.7

  

33 and under

7

10

64

90

0.1

-

1.0

Referent

34–42

12

9

119

91

 

0.4

1.6

0.5–5.1

43–50

12

10

106

90

 

0.2

2.4

0.7–8.8

51–59

11

8

120

92

 

0.5

1.6

0.4–6.3

60 and over

5

10

45

90

 

0.5

1.6

0.3–8.1

Marital status

     

0.01

  

Single

15

16

79

84

0.01

-

1.0

Referent

Separated/divorced

28

7

358

93

 

0.01

0.3

0.1–0.7

Married/living with partner

4

19

17

81

 

0.9

0.9

0.2–4.1

Ethnicity

        

White British or European

46

10

423

90

0.3

-

1.0

Referent

Other

1

3

31

97

 

0.2

0.3

0.03–2.4

Education/qualifications

     

0.5

  

No qualifications

6

23

20

77

0.001

-

1.0

Referent

Standard/O grades/GCSEs&Higher/A levels

6

21

22

79

 

0.9

0.9

0.2–4.1

Vocational/Further education

3

6

50

94

 

0.3

0.4

0.1–2.5

University undergraduate degree

9

12

67

88

 

0.5

2.0

0.3–11.4

University postgraduate degree

23

7

295

93

 

0.7

1.5

0.2–10.1

Job title

     

0.003

  

Professor/reader

6

7

75

93

< 0.001

-

1.0

Referent

Lecturer/senior lecturer

7

5

120

95

 

0.9

0.9

0.2–3.2

Research/teaching fellow/assistant

10

11

84

89

 

0.4

1.6

0.5–5.8

Administrative, secretarial &support technical

7

7

94

93

 

0.7

1.3

0.3–6.0

Support manual

15

34

29

66

 

0.02

18.3

2.8–121.4

Other

2

4

52

96

 

0.7

0.7

0.1–4.6

Alcohol status (drank less than recommended 21 units per week)

Yes

33

8

390

92

0.01

-

1.0

Referent

No

14

18

64

82

 

0.01

2.9

1.3–6.4

Physical activity level

        

Yes (have met guidelines)

14

7

179

93

0.3

-

1.0

Referent

No (have not met guidelines)

33

11

275

89

 

0.03

2.3

1.1–4.9

(a) current smokers vs. non-smokers & ex-smokers.

(b) age, marital status, ethnicity, education, job, alcohol consumption, physical activity level as independent variables.

Men from support manual staff were highly more likely to smoke (OR 18.3; 95% CI 2.8–121.2). Currently smokers were approximately 3 times more likely to consume more than the recommended 21 units of alcohol per week (OR 2.9; 95%CI 1.3–4.9). Those separated/divorced were less likely to smoke (OR 0.9; 95% CI 0.2–4.1). Also, men who do not meet current guidelines for physical activity were more than twice as likely to smoke (OR 2.3; 95%CI 1.1–4.9).

More than half of the current smokers (28, 60%) reported smoking as a problem. Nineteen respondents (40 %) wanted to quit smoking, 15 (32%) wanted to cut down this habit and 13 (28%) wanted to continue smoking. Men who would like to quit smoking were more than nine years younger (mean age 39.4; SD 11.7) than men who did not wish to change smoking behaviour (mean age 48.5; SD 8.1), [F (2; 44) = 4.3, p = 0.020).

Consumption of alcohol

Approximately nine out of ten respondents (n = 449) reported drinking alcohol and they were asked about the frequency of their drinking. The most reported frequency of drinking (37%) was one or two days a week. The most popular drinks for daily and weekly alcohol consumption were alcoholic lemonades (so-called alcopops), beer and wine. Within the other drinks men reported more often sherry or cider. Younger men (≤ 24 years) had more units of alcohol on their heaviest day than relatively older men (51–59 years), [χ2 (5) = 28.9, p < 0.001] as shown in Figure 1.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2458-8-58/MediaObjects/12889_2007_Article_1028_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Units of alcohol per heaviest day and age (n = 49). Error Bars show 95.0% confidence intervals (CI) of Mean Dots show Means.

Heavy drinkers (more than 4 units of alcohol on heaviest drinking day) were more likely to be single, separated or divorced, [χ2 (1) = 5.6, p = 0.02] or without qualifications [χ2 (10) = 20.2, p = 0.03]. The majority (63%) of men on their heaviest drinking day had fewer than 8 units while 37% men had more than 8 units. Average consumption of alcohol on the heaviest day was approximately 7.0 units.

The precise association between alcohol consumption and smoking status is shown in Table 3. The percentage of current smokers was almost twice as high within the group of men who consumed more than the recommended 21 units of alcohol weekly (18% vs. 8%). Also, the percentage of men who have not met the current guidelines for weekly alcohol consumption was higher within the group of ex smokers (32% vs. 23%) and the percentage of men who have never smoked (69%) was higher within the group of men who have met the current guidelines [χ2 (2) = 12.5, p = 0.002]. Current smokers were approximately three times more likely to consume more than the recommended 21 units of alcohol per week (OR 2.8; 95% CI 1.3–6.0) compared with men who currently do not smoke (Table 4).
Table 3

Association between alcohol consumption and smoking status (n = 501)

Factors

Smoking status

   
 

Current smoker (n = 47)

Ex smoker (n = 125)

Non smoker (n = 329)

Total

Statistical significance

 

n

%

n

%

n

%

N

%

p value

Alcohol status (drank less than recommended 21 units per week)

Yes

33

8

100

23

290

69

423

84

 

No

14

18

25

32

39

50

78

16

0.002

Total

47

9

125

25

329

66

501

100

 
Table 4

Association between alcohol consumption, some socio-economic and lifestyle characteristics (n = 501)

Factors (b)

Alcohol (drank less than recommended 21 units per week)

χ2-test

Logistic Regression

 

yes(a), (n = 423)

no (n = 78)

    
 

n

%

n

%

Unadjusted p value

Adjusted p value

OR

95% CI

Age

     

0.4

  

33 and under

53

75

18

25

0.1

-

1.0

Referent

34–42

108

82

23

18

 

0.8

0.9

0.4–2.0

43–50

105

89

13

11

 

0.1

0.5

0.2–1.5

51–59

114

87

17

13

 

0.2

0.5

0.2–1.3

60 and over

43

86

7

14

 

0.5

0.7

0.2–2.0

Marital status

     

0.1

  

Single

71

76

23

24

0.01

-

1.0

Referent

Married/living with partner

337

87

49

13

 

0.3

0.7

0.4–1.4

Separated/divorced

15

71

6

29

 

0.3

1.9

0.6–6.3

Ethnicity

        

White British or European

394

84

75

16

0.5

-

1.0

Referent

Other

29

91

3

9

 

0.4

0.6

0.2–2.0

Smoking status

        

Non smoker&ex smoker

390

86

64

14

0.01

-

1.0

Referent

Current smoker

33

70

14

30

 

0.01

2.8

1.3–6.0

Physical activity level

        

No (have not met current guidelines for physical activity level

272

88

36

12

0.3

-

1.0

Referent

Yes (met current guidelines)

117

92

16

8

 

0.1

0.7

0.4–1.1

Job title

     

0.06

  

Professor/reader

66

82

15

18

0.04

-

1.0

Referent

Lecturer/senior lecturer

117

92

10

8

 

0.01

0.3

0.1–0.8

Research/Teaching fellow/assistant

73

78

21

22

 

0.6

0.8

0.3–1.8

Administrative& Secretarial staff& Support technical

81

80

20

20

 

0.7

0.8

0.4–1.9

Support manual

39

89

5

11

 

0.1

0.3

0.1–1.0

Other

47

87

7

13

 

0.2

0.5

0.2–1.4

(a) have met guidelines for alcohol consumption (≤ 21 unit per week)

(b) age, marital status, ethnicity, job title, smoking status, physical activity level as independent variables.

Separated/divorced men were about twice as likely to drink heavily during the week (OR 1.9; 95% CI 0.4–2.0) compared to single men but this result was not statistically significant (p = 0.1). Men from support manual staff were less likely to have more than the currently recommended units of alcohol weekly (OR 0.3; 95%CI 0.1–1.0) but it was also not statistically significant (p = 0.06) in this study.

Only 27 out of 449 drinkers (6%) reported drinking as a problem and they were more than five years younger (mean age 40.2; SD 11.2) than men who did not report their drinking habit as a problem (mean age 45.2; SD 11.3), [t (446) = 2.3; 95% CI 0.7–9.5; p = 0.02]. Married men were less likely to regard their drinking habit as a problem (95%), [χ2 (2) = 6.6, p = 0.04]. Only 58 out of 449 drinkers (13%) wanted to cut down the amount of alcohol consumed and they were on average younger (mean age 39.6; SD 11.8) than men who responded negatively (mean age 45.7; SD 11.1), [t (446 = 3.9; 95% CI 3.1; 3.9; p < 0.001]

Physical activity

Over three-quarter of the respondents (77%) reported they were physically active in an average week. However, only 39% met the guidelines for physical activity. Table 5 shows associations between physical activity level, demographic, socio-economic and lifestyle characteristics of men in this study.
Table 5

Association between physical activity, demographic, socio-economic & lifestyle characteristics (n = 501)

Factors (b)

Physical activity level

χ2-test

Logistic Regression

 

Yes(a) (n = 193)

No (n = 308)

    
 

n

%

n

%

Unadjusted p value

Adjusted p value

OR

95% CI

Age

     

0.1

  

33 and under

42

59

29

41

0.001

-

1.0

Referent

34–42

55

42

76

58

 

0.2

1.6

0.8–2.9

43–50

36

31

82

69

 

0.01

2.5

1.2–4.9

51–59

44

34

87

66

 

0.02

2.3

1.1–4.7

60 and over

16

32

34

68

 

0.03

2.6

1.1–6.1

Marital status

     

0.3

  

Single

49

52

45

47

0.01

-

1.0

Referent

Married/living with partner

135

35

251

65

 

0.2

1.5

0.8–2.4

Separated/divorced

9

43

12

57

 

0.8

0.9

0.3–2.4

Smoking status

        

Non smokers&ex smokers

179

39

275

61

0.3

-

1.0

Referent

Current smoker

14

30

33

70

 

0.02

2.4

1.2–5.1

Alcohol status (drank less than recommended 21 units per week)

        

Yes

156

37

267

63

0.1

-

1.0

Referent

No

37

47

41

53

 

0.2

0.7

0.4–1.2

Job title

     

0.04

  

Professor/reader

22

27

59

73

0.02

 

1.0

Referent

Lecturer/senior lecturer

40

32

87

68

 

0.8

0.9

0.5–1.7

Research/Teaching fellow/assistant

41

44

53

56

 

0.5

0.8

0.4–1.6

Administrative&Secretarial staff& Support technical

41

41

60

59

 

0.2

0.7

0.4–1.3

Support manual

23

52

21

48

 

0.01

0.3

0.1–0.7

Other

26

48

28

52

 

0.1

0.5

0.2–1.1

(a) have met guidelines for physical activity level (30 minutes per day for 5 days a week)

(b) age, marital status, job, alcohol consumption, smoking status as independent variables.

According to logistic regression analysis, smoking status (p = 0.02) and job (p = 0.04) had a statistically significant association with physical activity level. Men from the support manual group were more likely to achieve the current guideline for physical activity (OR 0.3; 95% CI 0.1–0.7) compared with professor/reader. The trend was that physical activity level decreased with the decreasing level of job title. Senior grades such as academic/research took less exercise than junior grades such as support manual. The percentage of men who currently smoke was higher within the group of men with comparatively low levels of physical activity (70% vs. 61%). Within the group of men with adequate levels of physical activity, the percentage of men who described themselves as non-smokers and ex-smokers was higher (39%) than in group of current smokers (30%). More than one third, 38% thought that they did not have enough physical activity. Men with low levels of education (92%) did not have regard their physical activity level to be a problem compared with 44% of men with higher educational achievements [χ2 (5) = 21.3, p = 0.001]. The highest percentage of men who noted that their physical activity level was a problem was in non-manual jobs (55%), [χ2 (10) = 29.5, p = 0.001].

Most respondents wanted to increase their physical activity level (323, 65%) and these were approximately three years younger (mean age 43.9; SD 11.0) than men who did not want to increase it (mean age 46.9; SD 10.8), [t (449) = 2.9; 95% CI 1.0–5.0; p = 0.004]. Both men (70%) with higher educational attainment wanted to increase their physical activity level [χ2 (5) = 18.7, p = 0.002], and the majority in non-manual jobs (75%) reported they wanted more physical activity [χ2 (10) = 21.4, p = 0.02].

Discussion

In our study relatively few men were current smokers, three times fewer than the Scottish average (9% vs. 29%) [8]. Unlike other studies [8] we did not find an association between age and smoking prevalence. There were fewer heavy smokers in our study compared with the 2003 SHS (33% vs. 38%) [8]. Younger men (25–33) were more likely to be heavy smokers (36%); that is in contrast to the SHS which reported that smokers aged 16 to 34 were much less likely to smoke heavily [8].

The majority consumed alcohol, many (37%) consumed alcohol on 1 to 2 days per week and only 6% consumed alcohol less than once per month. Consuming more than the recommended limit of 21 units per week was reported by approximately 16% of men and this percentage was significantly less than that reported by the SHS (27%) [8]. The average weekly alcohol consumption was again less than reported in the national survey (11.4 vs. 17.2 units) [8]. However, average consumption of alcohol on the heaviest day was similar to the SHS (7.1 vs. 7.4 units) [8]. The Liverpool lifestyle survey reported that 32.9% of men consumed alcohol 1 to 3 times a week and 51.7% consumed alcohol at least once per week with average weekly consumption of 22.6 units [35]. In our survey, only six percent of men reported that their drinking was a problem and it was half of that in the national survey (12%) [8]. Relatively younger men reported drinking as a problem and than was similar to the SHS [8]. In addition, in the current study the percentage of men who have reported drinking as a problem was higher for married men. Younger men were more likely to wish to cut down the amount of alcohol they consumed and married men were more likely to remain at their present level. Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine the factors associated with alcohol consumption. Drinking was statistically significantly associated only with smoking status, whilst the SHS has also reported that drinking is age-related [8]. It is likely that the available statistics on alcohol consumption underestimate the true scale of the situation [41]. The General Household Survey in 2004 found that 65% of people aged over 16 in England had drunk alcohol in the preceding week, of whom nearly half had drunk more than the recommended daily limit on one or more days that week [42]. This English survey also showed that men drank more often than women, and that men were more likely to exceed the daily benchmark quantities of alcohol [42]. The SHS 2003 found that 27% of men and 14% of women typically drank more per week than the recommended limits [8]. Young people drank less frequently but those aged 16 to 24 were more likely than any other age group to have exceeded the daily recommended limits in the previous week [8].

Most (77%) men were physically active in an average week, but less than half (39%) were physically active for at least 30 minutes a day 5 times per week; slightly less compared to the SHS (42%) [8]. Only 27.4% of the adult population in Liverpool achieved moderate physical activity [35]. Smoking status and job title were the only major factors in our study associated with taking the recommended level of physical activity. The SHS reported age, socio-economic status and time spent sitting at a screen [8]. In general, participants in our study reported a relatively high general level of physical activity besides to common risk-behavioural lifestyle factors.

Our response rate was relatively low (38%) compared to the SHS (67%) [8], the Grampian Adult lifestyle survey (52.6%) [34], Tayside lifestyle survey (61%) [36], or the Liverpool lifestyle survey (39.9%) [35]. This might be related to the specific focus on men's health, sampling technique that has been used and/or the target groups of busy HE staff. Men often struggle with balancing a dilemma between 'do not care' and 'should care' [43], which may also influence their decision to participate in men's health research. Hence, it would be important to find out ways of increasing the response rate and carry out qualitative research in future studies to identify the causes of concerns and how it affects men's health seeking behaviour.

Conclusion

Limitations of our study were (1) its cross-sectional nature; (2) the response rate; and (3) not every area of life, lifestyle and health-related behaviour was covered in the questionnaire [44]. The study size was not calculated since the Personnel Department posted questionnaire to all men (100%) and sample size was fixed. As was to be expected in a HE population, men had high educational attainment (78%) and the majority were in non-manual jobs (60%). As HE institution staff, they were better educated than the general population and had better knowledge of health-related behaviour but they still showed unhealthy lifestyle behaviours. Our findings might suggest that many would benefit from a health promotion intervention offering advice, support and involvement in physical activity or behaviour changes. HE institutions, as potentially health-promoting workplaces, may help to encourage staff to change lifestyles [45]. A few risk factors were more common in this sample than in the general population, which would suggest that some health promotion intervention such as to change behaviour aimed at men working in HE might be appropriate.

The increased interest in men's health promotion over the past decades has been mirrored by a theoretical development around concepts of masculinity [46]. Gender differences affect both health and illness and the way men and women think, feel and behave [47]. Therefore, some have argued that men need to be targeted especially in public health prevention campaigns [48]. In spite of some shortcomings, our study shows that there are areas of health-related behaviour, which should be addressed to this study population. Hence, there appears to be scope for public health interventions aimed at this target group. It might be worth considering changes in the work environment and/or behavioural-change approaches to help men to adopt healthy behaviours.

Abbreviations

HE: 

Higher Education

HB: 

Health Behaviour

RB: 

Risk Behaviour

OR: 

Odd Ratio

CI: 

Confidence Interval

GSCE: 

General Certificate of Secondary Education

LR: 

Logistic Regression

SHS: 

Scottish Health Survey

SD: 

Standard Deviation, UK, United Kingdom, WHO World Health Organisation.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This study did not receive any funding and was conducted as part of a postgraduate study. We would like to thank all men who took part in this study and the reviewers for BMC Public Health for their helpful advice and suggestions.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Public Health, Polwarth Building, Medical School, Foresterhill, University of Aberdeen

References

  1. Men's Health Forum Scotland: Razing men's health awareness. [http://www.mhfs.org.uk/mhfs/index.php]
  2. Office for National Statistics: Life Expectancy. [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=168]
  3. Men's Health Forum Scotland: About the Well Man Pilot Projects. [http://www.mhfs.org.uk/mhfs/about_pilot_project.php]
  4. Leishman J: Around the world with men's health and women's health organisations. J Men's Health Gend. 2005, 2: 133-134. 10.1016/j.jmhg.2005.01.008.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. General Register Office for Scotland 2005: News Release: Latest Life Expectancy Figures Announced. General Register Office for Scotland, Edinburgh. 2005, [http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/press/news2005/0204le-press.html]Google Scholar
  6. Scottish Executive: Health in Scotland 2004. 2005, Edinburgh, The Scottish ExecutiveGoogle Scholar
  7. Improving Health in Scotland: The Challenge. 2003, Edinburgh: The Scottish Executive
  8. Scottish Executive: The Scottish Health Survey 2003: Summary of Key Findings. 2005, [http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/924/0019811.pdf]Google Scholar
  9. Men's Health Forum: Promoting men's health through pubs and clubs. [http://www.menshealthforum.org.uk/userpage1.cfm?item_id=269]
  10. Jodad AR, Meryn S: The future of men's health: trends and opportunities to watch in the age of the Internet. J Men's Health Gend. 2005, 2: 124-128. 10.1016/j.jmhg.2004.12.004.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Banks I: No man's land: men, illness, and the NHS. Brit Med J. 2001, 323: 1058-60. 10.1136/bmj.323.7320.1058.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Scottish Executive: Scotland's people: results from the 2003/2004 Scottish Household Survey: annual report. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh. 2005, [http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/housing/shsar03-20.asp]Google Scholar
  13. Scottish Executive: Towards a Healthier Scotland: A White Paper on Health. 1999, Edinburgh, The Stationery OfficeGoogle Scholar
  14. Scottish Executive: A Breath of Fresh Air for Scotland: Edinburgh. 2004Google Scholar
  15. Scottish Executive: Towards a Healthier Scotland: A White Paper on Health. 1999, Edinburgh, The Stationery OfficeGoogle Scholar
  16. Haukkala A, Laaksonen M, Uutela A: Smokers who do not want to quit – is consonant smoking related to lifestyle and socioeconomic factors?. Scand J Public Health. 2001, 3: 226-232. 10.1080/140349401316983653.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Thom B: Smoking, drinking and drug use: a privilege and a burden. J R Soc Health. 2004, 5: 207-209. 10.1177/146642400412400511.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Douglas F, van Teijlingen E, Torrance N, Fearn P, Kerr A, Meloni S: Promoting physical activity in primary care settings; health visitors' and practice. J Advanced Nurs. 2006, 55: 159-168. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03903.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Scottish Executive: The Scottish Health Survey 2003: Summary of Key Findings. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh. 2005Google Scholar
  20. Taylor Ross, Smith Blair, van Teijlingen Edwin: Health and illness in the community. 2003, Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  21. WHO: Annual global Move for Health Initiative: A concept paper. 2005, World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  22. Aarnio M, Winter T, Kujala U, Kaprio J: Associations of health related behaviour, social relationships, and health status with persistent physical activity and inactivity: a study of Finnish adolescent twins. Br J Sports Med. 2002, 36: 360-364. 10.1136/bjsm.36.5.360.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Blaxter M, (ed): Health and Lifestyles. 1990, London: Tavistock/RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Stronegger W, Freidl W, Rasky E: Health behaviour and risk behaviour: Socioeconomic differences in an Austrian rural county. Soc Sci Med. 1997, 44 (3): 423-426. 10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00181-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Duncan AK, Hays JT: The development of a men's health centre at an integrated academic health centre. J Men's Health Gend. 2005, 2: 17-20. 10.1016/j.jmhg.2005.01.003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Meryn S, Jadad AR: The future of men and their health. Are men in danger of extinction?. Brit Med J. 2001, 323: 1013-1014. 10.1136/bmj.323.7320.1013.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Galdas PM, Chester F, Marshal P: Men and help-seeking behaviour: literature review. J Advanced Nursing. 2004, 49: 616-623. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03331.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Meryn S: Qualitative research, communication in sexual and men's health and, who is the man's doctor?. J Men's Health Gend. 2005, 2: 3-5. 10.1016/j.jmhg.2005.01.012.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Scottish Executive: A partnership for a better Scotland. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh. 2004, [https://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47095/0025772.pdf]Google Scholar
  30. Moser CA, Kalton G: Survey method in social investigation. 1972, London: Heinemann EducationalGoogle Scholar
  31. Oppenheim AN, (ed): Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. 1992, London: London PinterGoogle Scholar
  32. Bowling A: Research method in health. 2004, Buckingham: Open University Press, 2Google Scholar
  33. University of Aberdeen, School of Medicine, Department of Public Health: The Well Men Services Project. [http://www.abdn.ac.uk/public_health/evaluation/]
  34. Grampian Health Board: Grampian Adult Lifestyle Survey 2002. Aberdeen: Grampian Health Board. 2003, [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/GHS2004_Smoking%20_and_Drinking_Report.pdf]Google Scholar
  35. The Liverpool and Seaton Lifestyle Survey. 2003, [http://www.liv.ac.uk/haccru/reports/Liverpool_and_South_Sefton_Lifestyle_Survey.pdf]
  36. Tayside Adult Health & Lifestyle Survey (16–74 years). 2003, [http://www.thpc.scot.nhs.uk/PDFs/Adult%20Health%20and%20Lifestyle%20Survey.pdf]
  37. McColl E, Jacoby A, Thomas L, Soutter J, Bamford C, Steen N, Thomas R, Harvey E, Garratt A, Bond J: Design and use of questionnaires: a review of best practice applicable to surveys of health service staff and patients. Health Technol Assess. 2001, 5: 31-View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Van Teijlingen E, Hundley V: Pilot study in family planning and reproductive health care. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2005, 3: 219-10.1783/1471189054483735.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Kinnear PR, Gray CD: SPSS for Windows, made simple. 2000, Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press, 2Google Scholar
  40. World Medical Association: Helsinki Declaration. [http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm]
  41. Royal College of Physicians: Alcohol – can the NHS afford it? Recommendations for a coherent alcohol strategy for hospitals. 2001, London: Royal College of Physicians, [http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/books/ActNHSai/alcoholNHS.pdf]Google Scholar
  42. Goddard E, Green H: General Household Survey: Smoking and drinking in adults. 2004. 2005, London: Office for National Statistics, [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/GHS2004_Smoking%20_and_Drinking_Report.pdf]Google Scholar
  43. O'Brien R, Hunt K, Hart G: It's caveman stuff, but that is to a certain extent how guys still operate: men's accounts of masculinity and help seeking. Soc Sci Med. 2005, 61: 503-516. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. O'Dowd T, Jewell D: Men's Health. Oxford, Oxford University Press. 1999, Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  45. Tsouros A, Dowding G, Thompson J, Dooris M, (eds): Health Promoting Universities: Concept, experience and framework for action. Copenhagen, World Health Organization. 1998
  46. Wall D, Kristjanson L: Men, culture and hegemonic masculinity: understanding the experience of prostate cancer. Nursing Inquiry. 2005, 12: 87-97. 10.1111/j.1440-1800.2005.00258.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Kiss A, Meryn S: Effect of sex and gender on physical aspects of prostate and breast cancer. Brit Med J. 2001, 323: 1055-1058. 10.1136/bmj.323.7320.1055.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Rieder A, Meryn S: Sex and gender matter. The Lancet. 2001, 358: 842-843. 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05989-X.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/8/58/prepub

Copyright

© Vasianovich et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2008

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/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement