Printer Friendly

Family Dinner Frequency and its Effect to Risk Behaviors among Nursing Students.

ABSTRACT

Family meals provide opportunities for families to communicate, express their feelings, and provide support to each other. Increased family connectedness and communication can be associated with decreased adolescent involvement in problematic behaviors such as alcohol use, smoking and illicit drug use. The aim of this study is to determine the relationship between the frequency of family dinner and alcohol use, smoking and illicit drug use. This study utilized a descriptive-correlational design. A researcher-structured questionnaire was used to gather data among 214 nursing students from a selected college of nursing in Metro Manila. Data were analyzed through frequency and percentage distribution, Pearsons chi square and Spearman's rho. Nursing students who often share family meals together are less likely to engage in alcohol use. Increased family dinner occurrences resulted in decreased alcohol use and cigarette smoking among nursing students. Results of this study can be used by nursing practitioners and educators to promote the importance of family dinner as part of their holistic care to clients especially to parents, adolescents and the community. Nursing students will be encouraged to seek more family meals and spend time bonding with their families. It will also help guide the creation of more family days in schools to allow students to have more opportunities to bond with their families.

Keywords: Family meals, smoking, alcohol use, illicit drug use, nursing students

INTRODUCTION

The family is the basic social foundation that functions in two major ways: reproduction and socialization (Maglaya, 2005). Open family interactions create teaching opportunities for parents to mold adolescents coping and positive health behaviors (Repetti, Taylor, & Seeman, 2002). Socialization among family members mainly occurs during family meals (Fiese & Schwartz, 2008; Larson, Branscomb, & Wiley, 2006; Fiese, Tomcho, Douglas, Joseph & Backer, 2002). These family meals provide opportunities for families to communicate, express their feelings, and provide support to each other, which is important in strengthening their family ties (Ochs & Shohet, 2006; Fiese et al., 2002). Food sharing and assembly of family members together around the table is also known to yield understanding (Fulkerson, Neumark-Sztainer & Story, 2006; Valentine, 1999; Kuper, 1993). In addition, family meal is also a substitute of family connectedness and communication (Fulkerson, Story, Mellin, Leffert, Neumark-Sztainer & French, 2006). It identifies various family functioning such as family communication, support, conflict, and parenting style as important predictors of adolescent health and health behaviors (Connell, Kauffmann, Levitt & Schlauch, 2013; DeVore & Ginsburg, 2005).

The close relationship between parents and adolescents is the main empirical evidence point of the theories of adolescent development (Smolensky & Gootman, 2003; Eccles & Gootman, 2002). Increased parental monitoring and communication has been associated with decreased adolescent involvement in delinquent-related risk behaviors (Stanton, Li, Pack, Cottrell, Harris & Burns, 2002). Furthermore, adolescents who are either on their own unsupervised or with their peers are more likely to engage in problematic behaviors (Smolensky et. al, 2003). These problematic behaviors include alcohol, substance use, and smoking.

Alcohol use in adolescents is considered common (Hibell, Guttormsson, & Ahlstrom, 2012; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012). Hazardous and harmful drinking behaviors such as frequent drinking to intoxication and heavy episodic or binge drinking have all been increasing throughout the years (World Health Organization, 2011). About 7% of the total 18-24 year old population in the Philippines was heavy episodic drinkers; most of them are males and are usually out of school (World Health Organization, 2011; Commission on Population, Republic of the Philippines, 2002).

Tobacco use is almost always started and learned during the adolescent period usually before 18 years of age (United States Department of Health and Human Services, 2012 and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2009). Forty percent (40%) of the male adolescent population in the Philippines are smoking, some of them started during their early teens (World Health Organization, 2002). Illegal use of drugs is common among adolescents, with rates of substance use growing as adolescents age (Johnston, O'Malley Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2009; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2009). Illegal drug consumption in the Philippines is composed mainly of the 15-19 years old age bracket (Department of Health, 2009). Moreover, marijuana is considered as the most widely used illegal drug on college campuses (Johnston et. al., 2012).

Alcohol use, smoking, and substance use are usually developed by adolescents when they are under great stress (Johnson, Dariotis & Wang, 2012; Galvan & McGlennen, 2012). This negative affective state causes adolescents to engage in risk-taking behaviors (Magid, Colder, Stroud Nichter & Nichter, 2009; Corbin, Farmer & Nolen-Hoekesma, 2013; Buckner, Schmidt, Bobadilla & Taylor, 2006). Adolescents particularly nursing students are more likely to have higher stress levels compared to other health professional students and the general population (Por, Bariball, Fitzpatrick & Roberts, 2011; Gibbons, 2010; Watson, Dreary, Thompson & Li; 2008). They believe that they only have minimal free time due to great demands of studying, and clinical work away from school (Shriver & Scott-Stiles, 2000).

The busy life of a student nurse prevents him from spending time with his family and doing family activities together such as attending family dinners (Eisenberg, Neumark-Sztainer, Fulkerson & Story, 2008). A growing body of research suggests that the frequency of family dinners is important to adolescent health (Eisenberg et al., 2008). Studies done in Canada, Alabama, and Minnesota suggests that family dinner frequency is inversely related to high-risk behavior patterns (Elgar, Craig & Trites, 2013; Sen, 2010; Fulkerson et al., 2006). There are no present literatures regarding the topic in the Philippine setting. The researchers wanted to fill in this knowledge gap that exists about the topic and to determine if there is a relationship between family dinner occurrences and inclination of student nurses to engage in risk behavior in a Philippine setting. They assumed that the lessened chances and opportunities for family dinners may lead to the engagement of risk behaviors stated above.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to describe the profile of the respondents in terms of age, gender, and socio-economic status. It also intends to find out if there is a significant relationship between the frequency of family dinner and alcohol use, cigarette smoking, and illicit drug use among undergraduate nursing students in a selected College of Nursing in Metro Manila. It also aims to find out if there is a significant correlation between the frequency of family dinner and the frequency of alcohol use, the frequency of cigarette smoking, and the frequency of illicit drug use among undergraduate nursing students in a selected College of Nursing in Metro Manila.

METHODOLOGY

A descriptive-correlational study was used to discuss variables and investigate the connection between these variables. It enabled determination of interrelationships in the problem. It also investigated variables in a problem that has already happened or is currently happening (Burns & Groves, 2013). The researchers utilized the descriptive-correlational method of study. By using this design, the researchers were able to describe the relationship between family dinner frequency and the problematic behaviors such as alcohol, smoking and illicit drug use among the Levels II, III and IV nursing students. The participants of the study consisted of Levels II, III and IV regular nursing students in a selected College of Nursing in Metro Manila, who are currently enrolled during the Academic Year 2014-2015. In the case of students who are minors, with an age below eighteen (18) years old, a parental consent and assent was secured from their parents. The researchers included 214 nursing students from the selected study site using the sample size formula with 95% confidence level. Seventy two (72) students were included from each of the second and third year levels, both with eight (8) sections each. Another seventy (70) were included from the ten (10) sections of fourth year students. The respondents are regular student in the College of Nursing. Level I nursing students were not included in the study because they have not yet been exposed to the stressful environment that inclines one to engage in problematic behaviors.

The researchers used stratified random sampling. In this method, the respondents are stratified according to year level and section then chosen randomly and entirely by chance. The researchers utilized the fishbowl technique wherein numbers were picked with their corresponding names, were chosen as respondents from all the class list of each section from Levels II, III and IV The Family Dinner and Problematic Behavior Profile Survey was utilized in the gathering data. It is a questionnaire developed by the researchers, validated by a psychologist, a sociologist and a statistician which consisted of three parts namely: Demographic Profile, Family Dinner Frequency and Problematic Behavior, all written in the English language. Part I of the questionnaire deals with the Demographic Profile of the respondents. This determines the frequency distribution and percentage of the respondents' attributes in terms of the Age, Gender and Socio-economic Status. The demographic data will be used to interpret the distribution of the respondents in terms of their alcohol use, illicit drug use and smoking.

Part II of the questionnaire is Family Dinner frequency of the respondents. This contains questions about frequency in spending time with family on a monthly basis and frequency in sharing dinner with family on a weekly basis. The results are correlated to other variables that will answer the research questions. Part III of the questionnaire identifies the problematic behavior among the respondents. It is further divided into three subparts which are alcohol use, illicit drug use and tobacco use. This aims to find out the frequency of each of the problematic behaviors and to identify the specific substance used. The results are interrelated to other variables which will answer the research question. The content validity of the research instrument was evaluated by three experts in the field of Psychology, Sociology and Nursing Research. The suggestions and recommendations made by the evaluators were considered to enhance and confirm the content validity of the research instrument.

The research instrument underwent pilot testing among 12 Level II, III and IV nursing students who were not included in the actual study. Pilot testing was done to ensure that the questions were clearly understood and all possible family dinner frequency and problematic behaviors used by the respondents were covered by the questionnaire.

The reliability of the research instrument was determined by a statistician to analyze the reliability of each scale in the questionnaire with the correlation for every item. A high degree of reliability of the research instrument relies on higher value of coefficient. The Cronbachs Alpha of the questionnaire is 0.88 hence the Family Dinner and Problematic Behavior Survey was proven to be a strongly reliable research instrument.

The following data gathering procedure was used by the researchers.

1. The researchers developed the questionnaire "The Family Dinner and Problematic Behavior Profile Survey".

2. Experts in the fields of Psychology, Sociology and Nursing Research evaluated the research instrument for its content validity.

3. The researchers sent a letter to the Office of the Dean of the selected College of Nursing to ask permission to conduct a study among the Level II, III and IV nursing students.

4. Pilot testing of the research instrument was conducted among 12 Level II, III and IV nursing students who were not included in the actual study. Results were encoded by the researchers and were submitted to a statistician for the measurement of the reliability of the research instrument. Revisions were made based on the recommendations from the participants of the pilot test and the statistician.

5. The researchers informed the respondents about the nature, purpose, and the potential risks and benefits of the study. After a thorough explanation by the researchers, the respondents were requested to sign a parental consent/assent for minors, and consent for referral.

6. The researchers scheduled the data gathering according to the availability and convenience of the respondents. Their schedule of lecture classes and related learning experience were considered. They were also informed of the scheduled date, time and place of the study.

7. The researchers included 214 nursing students from all sections of the Level II, III, and IV of the selected College of Nursing as respondents.

8. The study was conducted in the classrooms of each Level II, III and IV nursing students of the selected College of Nursing. The researchers were present in the study site to assist the respondents for any concerns regarding the study.

9. Data gathered were encoded and tabulated by the researchers. Appropriate analysis and interpretation were made through the help of statisticians.

Data gathered were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 21. The following statistical treatments were used for the analysis and interpretation of data.

1. Frequency distribution- it visually displays frequency counts so that the information can be interpreted more easily. It shows absolute frequencies or relative frequencies, such as proportions or percentages.

2. Percentage distribution- is a display of data that specifies the percentage of observations that exist for each data point or grouping of data points. It is a useful method of expressing the relative frequency of survey responses and other data.

3. Pearsons chi square- is used to test for the significance of relationships between variables cross-classified in a bivariate table. The chi-square test results in a chi-square statistic that tells us the degree to which the conditional distributions (the distribution of the dependent variable across different values of the independent variable) differ from what we would expect under the assumption of statistical independence.

4. Spearman's rho - is a nonparametric measure of the strength and direction of association that exists between two variables measured on at least an ordinal scale. The test is used for either ordinal variables or for continuous data that has failed the assumptions necessary for conducting the Pearson's product-moment correlation.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 1.1 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents in terms of their age. 36% of the respondents are 18 years old, 31% are 19 years old, 14% are 17 years old, 13% are 20 years old, 1% are 21 years old, and 5% are 22 years old. Clearly, majority of the respondents were 17 to 20 years old and most of them are of legal age. The age ranges of the nursing students were scattered across the year level. There are 22 year olds that are still under year level 3 and 19 year olds under year level 1. Commonly, the ages predominant at year level 2 range from 17 to 18 years old, at year level 3, 18 to 19 years old and at year level 4, 19 to 20 years old. Generally, the research study catered a wide range of ages from 16 to 24 years old. Adolescents within the age of 15-18 years old were the common respondents. These age ranges have high affinity with risky or problematic behaviors and have more time for their peers than with their families (Eisenberg, Olson, Neumark-Sztainer, Story & Bearinger, 2004).
Age, 24y/o,   0.47%,0%
Age, 16y/o,   0.00%,0%
     17y/o,  14%(29)
     18y/o,  36%(75)
     19y/o,  31%(65)
     20y/o,  13%(27)
     21y/o,   1%(2)
     22y/o,   5%(10)

N=208
Figure 1.1 The Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the
Respondents in Terms of Age

Note: Table made from pie chart.


Seventy-one (71) percent of the respondents are female and 29% of the respondents belong to the male population. It is mainly because of a higher female to male population ratio in the selected college of nursing. Nursing profession is traditionally and predominantly female. Only in the span of 6 years did the increase in male RNs occur (1995-2011). Since there are more female populace than male populace, there has been a higher probability that female respondents will be chosen as compared to males. More females were also observed to participate in previous studies conducted due to the same reasons that the population of the female outnumber the population of the male (Fulkerson, et.al, 2011 and Eisenberg et.al, 2008).

About forty-seven percent (46.93%) of the respondents have a monthly family income of above P100,000, 44.90% of the respondents have a monthly family income of P50,000-P100,000 and 8.17% of the respondents have a monthly family income below P50,000. Majority of the respondents are of greater than 100,000 monthly family incomes or with a family income between P50,000 and P100,000. High income segments has the monthly family income of P200,000 per month. Middle income class has the monthly income of P36, 934 and low income class has the monthly income of P9, 061 (National Statistical Coordination Board, 2011). The data indicates that they are not economically deprived. In the previous studies done, middle class group and upper-middle class group are also common (Neumark-Sztainer, Wall, Larson, Story, Fulkerson, Eisenberg and Hannan, 2012). This result and its supporting literature determine the respondents' availability of the resources (money) in buying liquors, beers and cigarettes.

Table 1 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of respondents by year level in terms of their frequency in spending time with family on a monthly basis. Second year and third year levels both have 48.5% of the respondents who spend time with family more than 4 times a month. Only 34.3% of the respondents from fourth year level spend time with family more than 4 times a month. Evidently, majority of the respondents who frequently spend time with family are the second year students and third year students and majority of the respondents who do not spend time with family are the fourth year students. This is mostly caused by increased demands of school activities, requirements and peers leading to less time spent at home. The intention to eat meals with family is more frequent in lower year levels and less frequent in higher year levels (Fulkerson, 2011).

Table 2 above shows the frequency and percentage distribution of respondents by year level in terms of frequency in sharing dinner with family on a weekly basis. The respondents' year level with the highest frequency to share dinner with family is the second year level with 33.8% distribution. Third year level respondents have 31.9% who share dinner with their families. Only 21.7% of the respondents from the fourth year level share dinners with their family every day. The second year students have the higher frequency of sharing dinner with their family compared to fourth year students. Level 4 students are of great distribution under 'eating less than 4 times a week with their family' with 62.3%. Due to the same cause, that the nursing students are more demanded by the loads of school works and peers, they tend to eat less with their family. Older adolescents dine less frequently with their family due to the increasing commitments and greater autonomy asserted by them (Neumark-Sztainer, 2012).

Table 3 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents by year level in terms of their frequencies in staying at their respective dormitories or houses with or without their families on a school day. The table above shows that respondents coming from the third year have the most number of people that stay in the dorm without their families with 60.0%. Next is he second year respondents with 50.0% and least is the fourth year respondents with 47.8%. The second years are the most frequent to stay with their families in the dormitories with 17.6%, followed by the fourth years with 17.4% and lastly, the third years with 6.7%. Respondents coming from the fourth year have the highest frequency of going home to their families with 34.8%, followed by the third year students with 33.3% and lastly, the second year students with 32.4%. The data in this table is the first from its topic and there are no literatures available to support these data.

Table 4 displays the incidence of alcohol use among the respondents per year level. The level 4 population has the highest number of alcohol users with the percentage distribution of 56.5% compared to second year with 55.9% and third year with 53.6%. This shows that senior college students are majority of the alcohol drinkers and second year college students are the least alcohol drinkers. Alcohol use is prevalent among all the year levels but has the highest occurrence from the year level 4. The result is normal basing from a work done which states that drinking rates are held fairly steady among college students but increase with age (O'Malley & Johnston, 2002).

Table 5 above shows the incidence of cigarette consumption among the respondents by year level. 4.4% of the respondents from the second year level, 4.3% of the respondents from the third year level and 13% of the respondents from the fourth year level admit to cigarette consumption. Majority of the smokers are 4th year students and majority of the non-smokers are the 2nd and 3rd year students. The findings concur with the 2012 survey conducted that 18-25 years old, which is under 3rd year and 4th year levels, are the most common tobacco and cigarette users among adolescents and young adults (National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2012).

Table 6 shows the incidence of illicit drug use among respondents by year level. 1.5% of the respondents from the second year level, 1.4% of the respondents from the third year level, and 2.9% of the respondents from the fourth year level admit to drug use. This indicates that majority of the illicit drug users are from 4th year level and the least are from 2nd year level as supported by the National Survey on Drug Use and Health in a survey conducted in 2012. These results, increasing problematic behaviour occurrence as year level increases, are mainly due to the tendency of youths to have greater autonomy as they grow old especially when they are beyond or of legal age (Eisenberg et al., 2008).

Table 7 shows the relationship between family dinner frequency and alcohol use among nursing students of all year levels. The result shows the value of 8.119 and p-value of .044 (p-value < 0.05) rejecting the null hypothesis. Thus, there is a significant relationship between family dinner frequency and alcohol use. This result is consistent with the study conducted by Eisenberg, et.al and Sen in 2010.

Table 8 presents the relationship between family dinner frequency and cigarette consumption among nursing students of all year levels. The data resulted in a Pearsons Chi-Square value of 1.482 with the p-value of .686, accepting the null hypothesis meaning, there is no significant relationship between the frequency of family dinners of nursing students and cigarette smoking arguing the results of other studies that indicate a significant relationship between the two (Eisenberg et al., 2008; Yaneza, Lopeza, Serra-Batllesb, Rogerb, Arnaua, & Rouraa, 2006).

Table 9 shows the relationship between family dinner frequency and illicit drug use among nursing students of all year levels. The data yielded a chi-square value of .201 and p-value of .977, accepting the null hypothesis about the relationship between dinner frequency and drug consumption. Thus, in the study, a significant relationship between the two is not observed. Studies done by CASA over the past 20 years have consistently found that the more often teens have dinner with their parents, the less likely they are to use drugs (Fruh, Mulekar, Hall, & Fulkerson, 2013). Teens are less likely to use drugs if they have 5-7 family meals a week (Fruh, Fulkerson, Kendrick, & Clanton, 2011). Resnick and colleagues showed that family connectedness is linked with less engagement in high-risk behaviors such as substance use. The Spearman's correlation coefficient value is -.035 which means that there is a small negative correlation between family dinner frequency and alcohol consumption frequency. The coefficient value is less than the p-value (0.35 < 0.0), which indicates that the correlation is significant, rejecting the null hypothesis thus there is a significant correlation between the frequency of family dinners and the incidence of alcohol use. In addition, the negative correlation in the study is consistent with previous studies (Eisenberg et al., 2008 & Fulkerson et al., 2006). Their studies also suggest that regular family meals have a long-term protective effect on adolescents from the development of substance use (including alcohol) behaviors and indicating the inverse relationship between adolescent high risk behaviors and family dinner frequency (Eisenberg et al., 2008 & Fulkerson et al., 2006).

The simple random sampling technique that was used results only to few cigarette users out of all the respondents causing a non-significant effect on the data. However, these few respondents who smoke cigarettes produced a result that shows the correlation coefficient of -.104 which means that there is a small negative correlation between dinner frequency and cigarette consumption. The coefficient value is greater than the p-value (.104 > .05) which means that the null hypothesis is accepted. The direction of the correlation approves Scal, Ireland and Borowsky Fulkerson, et al. and Eisenberg et al.'s works from 2003 to 2011 indicating an inverse correlation between smoking and family dinner. These indicate that there is something unique about the families that share a meal together and that these family dinners can promote family togetherness (Fulkerson et al., 2006). A study by Yaneza, et al. in 2006, disagrees to other studies presented earlier. They stated that family structure and dynamics influence the smoking in adolescents. Thus, they concluded that youths who eat their lunch at school are less likely to smoke rather than youths who eat at their own home. The present study does not confirm with previous researches regarding the inverse relationship between family frequency and substance use (Fulkerson, Story, Mellin, Leffert, Neumark-Sztainer, & French, 2006). There are insufficient respondents using drugs which is why when computed, the results did not show any significant correlation between the two.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, frequent family dinners prevent adolescent nursing students from engaging in alcohol use. The frequency of family dinners was not found to be significant in preventing adolescent nursing students from engaging in smoking and drug use.

LITERATURE CITED

Buckner, J. D., Schmidt, N. B., Bobadilla, L., & Taylor, J.

2006 Social anxiety and problematic cannabis use: Evaluating the moderating role of stress reactivity and perceived coping. Behaviour Research and Therapy, Volume 44, Issue 7, 1007-1015.

Burns, N. & Groves, S. K.

2013 The Practice of Nursing Research: Appraisal, Synthesis, and Generation of Evidence, 6th Edition. Philadelphia: Saunders, Elsevier.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

2012 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance--United States, MMWR Surveill Summ.

Connell, R. C, Kaufman, J. S., Levitt, A., & Schlauch, R. C.

2013 The moderating effect of family involvement on substance use risk factors in adolescents with severe emotional and behavioral challenges. Addictive Behaviors, Volume 38, Issue 7, 2333-2342.

Corbin, W. R., Farmer, N. M., & Nolen-Hoeskema, S.

2013 Relations among stress, coping strategies, coping motives, alcohol consumption and related problems: A mediated moderation model. Addictive Behaviors, Volume 38, Issue 4, 1912-1919.

Department of Health. (n.d.). Adolescent and Youth Health Program. Retrieved from HYPERLINK "http://www.doh.gov.ph/node/338.html" http://www.doh.gov.ph/node/338.html

DeVore, E. R., & Ginsburg, K. R.

2005 The protective effects of good parenting on adolescents. Current Opinions in Pediatrics, 17, 460-465.

Eccles, J. S., & Gootman, J. A.

2002 Community programs to promote youth development. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Eisenberg, M. E., Neumark-Sztainer, D., Fulkerson, J. A., & Story, M.

2008 Family Meals and Substance Use: Is There a Long-Term Protective Association? Journal of Adolescent Health, 43(2), 151-156.

Eisenberg, M.E., Olson, R.E., Neumark-Sztainer, D., Story ,M., Bearinger L.H.

2004 Correlations between family meals and psychological well-being among adolescents, Archive of Pediatric Adolescents, 158, pp. 792-796

Elgar, F. J., Craig, W., & Trites, S. J.

2013 Family Dinners, Communication, and Mental Health in Canadian Adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52(4), 433-438.

Fiese, B. H., Tomcho, T. J., Douglas, M., Joseph , K., Poltrock, S., & Backer, T.

2002 A review of 50 years of research on naturally occurring family routines and rituals: cause for celebration? Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 381-390.

Fiese, B., & Schwartz, M.

2008 Reclaiming the family table: mealtimes and child health and wellbeing. Society for Research in Child Development Social Policy Report, vol. 22(4), 3-18.

Fruh, S. M., Fulkerson, J. A., Mulekar, M. S., Kendrick, L. J., & Clanton, C.

2011 The Surprising Benefits of Family Meal. The Journal for Nurse Practitioners, 7 (1), 18-22.

Fruh, S. M., Mulekar, M. S., Hall, H. R., & Fulkerson, J. A.

2013 Perspectives and Observations of Graduate Nursing Students Related to Family Meals. The Journal for Nurse Practitioners , 9 (1), 17-27.

Fulkerson, J. A., Neumark-Sztainer, D., & Story, M.

2006 Adolescent and parent views of family meals. Jpurnal of the American Diebetic Association, 106 (4), 526-532.

Fulkerson, J. A., Story, M., & Mellin, A.

2006 Family dinner meal frequency and adolescent development: relationships with developmental assets and high-risk behaviors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39, 337-345.

Galvan, A., & McGlennen, K. M.

2012 Daily stress increases risky decision-making in adolescents: a preliminary study. Dev. Psychobiol, 54, 433-440.

Gibbons, C.

2010 Stress, coping and burn-out in nursing students. International Journal of Nursing Studies, Volume 47, Issue 10, 1299-1309.

Hibell, B., Guttormsson, U., & Ahlstrom, S.

2012 The 2011 ESPAD Report: Substance use among students in 36 Eurpoean countries, Swedish Counci for Information on Alcohol and Other Drugs (CAN). Stockholm.

Johnson, S. B., Dariotis, J. K., & Wang, C.

2012 Adolescent Risk Taking Under Stressed and Nonstressed Conditions: Conservative, Calculating, and Impulsive Types. Journal of Adolescent Health, Volume 51, Issue 2, 34-40.

Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E.

2009 Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975-2008. Volume II: College students and adults ages 19-50 (NIH Publication No. 09-7403). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 306 pp.

Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E.

2012 Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975-2011. Volume II: College students and adults ages 19-50. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan, 314 pp.

Kuper, A.

1993 The English Christmas and the family. Time out and alternative realities. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Larson, R., Branscomb, K., & Wiley, A.

2006 Forms and functions of family mealtimes: multidisciplinary perspectives. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 111, 1-15.

Magid, V., Colder, C. R., Stroud, L. R., Nichter, M., & Nichter, M.

2009 Negative affect, stress, and smoking in college students: Unique associations independent of alcohol and marijuana use. Addictive Behaviors, Volume 34, Issue 11, 973-975.

Maglaya, A. S.

2004 Nursing Practice In The Community. Marikina City: Argonauta Corporation.

National Statistical Coordination Board

2011 Family Income and Expenditure Survey, Retrieved from HYPERLINK http://www.nscb.gov.ph/secstat/d_income.asp

Neumark Sztainer, D., Wall, M. M., Larson, N., Story, M., Fulkerson, J. A., Eisenberg, M. E. & Hannan, P. J.

2012 Secular trends in weight status and weight-related attitudes and behaviors in adolescents from 1999 to 2010, Preventive Medicine, Volume 54, Issue 1, Pages 77-81

Ochs, E., & Shohet, M.

2006 The cultural structuring of mealtime socialization. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 111, 35-49.

O'Malley, P.M. & Johnston, L. D.,

2002 Epidemiology of alcohol and other drug use among American college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Supplement, (s14), 23-39

Por, J., Bariball, L., Fitzpatrick, J., & Roberts, J.

2011 Emotional intelligence: Its relationship to stress, coping, well-being and professional performance in nursing students. Nurse Education Today, Volume 31, Issue 8, 855-860.

Preventing Tobacco Use among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General.

2012 United States Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Office of the Surgeon General, Rockville, MD.

Repetti, R. L., Taylor, S. E., & Seeman, T. E.

2002 Risky families: family social environments and the mental and physical health of offspring. Psychol Bull, 218, 330-366.

Results from the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings (Office of Applied Studies, NSDUH Series H-36, HHS Publication No. SMA 09-4434). (2009). Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Scal, P., Ireland, M., & Borowsky, I. W.

2003 Smoking among American adolescents: a risk and protective factor analysis, J Community Health. 2003 Apr;28(2):79-97.

Sen, B.

2010 The relationship between frequency of family dinner and adolescent problem behaviors after adjusting for other family characteristics. Journal of Adolescence,Volume 33, Issue 1, 187-196.

Shriver, C. B., & Scott-Stiles, A.

2000 Health habits of nursing versus non-nursing students: A longitudinal study. The Journal of Nursing Education, 39(7), 308-314.

Smolensky, E., & Gootman, J.

2003 Working families and growing kids: Caring for children and adolescents. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Stanton, B., Li, X., & Pack, R.

2002 Longitudinal influence of perceptions of peer and parental factors on African American adolescent risk involvement. Journal of Urban Health, 79 (4), 536-548.

State of the Philippine Population Report 2nd Ed.

2002 Pinoy Youth: Making Choices, Building Voices. Manila: Commission on Population, Republic of the Philippines.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Results from the 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings, NSDUH Series H-46, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 13-4795. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2013.

Valentine, G.

1999 Eating in. Home, consumption and identity. The Sociological Review, 47 (3), 491-524.

Watson, R., Dreary, I., Thompson, D., & Li, G.

2008 A study of stress and burnout in nursing students in Hong Kong: a questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45, 1534-1542.

World Health Organization.

2002 Smoking Statistics: Fact Sheet. Retrieved January 7, 2014, from HYPERLINK "http://www.wpro.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs_20020528/en/" http://www.wpro.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs_20020528/en/

World Health Organization

2011 Global status report on alcohol and health. Geneva.

Yaneza, A., Lopez, R., Serra-Battley, J., Arnau, A., & Roura, R.,

2006 Smoking among adolescents: Population study on parental and school influences. Arch Bronconeumol, 42 (7), 21-24.

SAMANTHA ALEXIS E. ZAGADA

ORCID No. 0000-0003-4047-1774

alexis_zagada@yahoo.com

JANA ALYZA S. ZABALA

ORCID No. 0000-0001-5095-1101

janazabala@yahoo.com

JAN MICHAEL G. YEE

ORCID No. 0000-0002-0012-5976

Jmyee_angel@yahoo.com

MIRO YOUN

ORCID No. 0000-0002-6038-3459

mirolovesj93@gmail.com

RAFAEL INIGO M. YUTANGCO

ORCID No. 0000-0002-3568-6001

inigo.yutangco@yahoo.com

JAYSON Y. ZARATE

ORCID No. 0000-0002-6577-0386

jaysonyapzarate@gmail.com

BERYL P. BATTAD

ORCID No. 0000-0003-2993-9874

beryl_battad@yahoo.com

University of Santo Tomas

Manila, Philippines
Table 1. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Year
Level in Terms of Frequency in Spending Time with Family on a Monthly
Basis

                         Levels
Frequencv of Going Home  Second Year  Third Year  Fourth Year  Total

More than
4x a month    Count       33          33          23           89
              % within
              levels      48.5%       48.5%       34.3%        43.8%
              Count        9                      10           24
4x a month    % within
              levels     132%          7.4%       14.9%        11.8%
              Count        3           3           4           10
3x a month    % within
              levels       4.4%        4.4%        6.0%         4.9%
              Count        6          10           5           21
2x a month    % within
              levels       8.8%       14.7%        7.5%        10.3%
              Count        8           9          15           32
Once a month  % within
              levels      11.8%       13.2%       22.4%        15.8%
Never         Count        9           8          10           27
              % within
              levels      13.2%       11.8%       14.9%        13.3%

Table 2. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Year
Level in terms of their Frequency in Sharing Dinner with Family on a
Weekly Basis

Dinner Frequency                     Years
                                     Second Year  Third Year

Everyday             Count           23           22
                     % within years  33.8%        31.9%
                     Count            6            4
More than 4x a week  % within years   8.8%         5.8%
4x a. week           Count            2            5
                     % within years   2.9%         7.2%
                                     37           38
Less than 4x a week  Count
                     % within years  54.4%        55.1%
                     Count           68           69

Dinner Frequency                  Total
                     Fourth Year

Everyday             15            60
                     21.7%         29.1%
                      8            18
More than 4x a week  11.6%          8.7%
4x a. week            3            10
                      4.3%          4.9%
                     43           118
Less than 4x a week
                     62.3%        573%
                     69           206

Table 3. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Year
Level in terms of their Frequency in Staying at Dorm or House With or
Without Family on a School Day

                                     Year
Frequency of Staying                 Second year  Third year

                      Count          34           36
dorm without family   % within year  50.0%        60.0%
                      Count          12            4
dorm with family      % within year  17.6%         6.7%
                      Count          22           20
house with family
                      % within year  32.4%        33.3%

                                   Total
Frequency of Staying  Fourth year

                      33           103
dorm without family   47.8%         52.3%
                      12            28
dorm with family      17.4%         14.2%
                      24            66
house with family
                      34.8%         33.5%

Table 4. Incidence of Alcohol Use among the Respondents per Year Level

Alcohol Use             Year Levels                           Total
                        Second Year  Third Year  Fourth Year

       Count            38           37          39           114
Yes    % within levels  55.9%        53.6%       56.5%         55.3%
       Count            30           32          30            92
No     % within levels  44.1%        46.4%       43.5%         44.7%
Total  Count            68           69          69           206

Table 5. Incidence of Cigarette Consumption among the Respondents per
Year Level

Cigarette               Year Levels                           Total
Consumption             Second Year  Third Year  Fourth Year

Yes    Count             3            3           9            15
       % within levels   4.4%         4.3%       13.0%          7.3%
No     Count            65           66          60           191
       % within levels  95.6%        95.7%       87.0%         92.7%
Total  Count            68           69          69           206

Table 6. Incidence of Illicit Drug Use among the Respondents per Year
Level

Drug Use                Year Levels                           Total
                        Second year  Third year  Fourth year

Yes    Count             1            1           2             4
       % within levell   1.5%         1.4%        2.9%          1.9%
No     Count            67           69          67           203
       % within levell  98.5%        98.6%       97.1%         98.1%
Total  Count            68           70          69           207

Table 7. Relationship Between Family Dinner Frequency and Alcohol Use
among Nursing Students

Family Dinner Frequency and                   Asymp.     Sig.
Alcohol Use                  Value        Df  (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square             8.119 (a)  3   .044
Likelihood Ratio               8.139      3   .043
Linear-by-LinearAssociation    7.547      1   .006
N of Valid Cases             205

Table 8. Relationship Between Family Dinner Frequency and Cigarette
Consumption among Nursing Students of All Year Levels

Family Dinner Frequency and     Value        Df  Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Cigarette Consumption
Pearson Chi-Square                1.482 (a)  3   .686
Likelihood Ratio                  1.277      3   .735
Lin ear-by-Lin ear Association     .049      1   .826
N of Valid Cases                205

Table 9. Relationship Between Family Dinner Frequency and Illicit Drug
Use among Nursing Students of All Year Levels

Family Dinner Frequency
and Illicit Drug Use         Value       df  Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square              .201(a)  3   .977
Likelihood Ratio                .187     3   .980
Linear-by-LinearAssociation     .001     1   .972
N of Valid Cases             203
COPYRIGHT 2015 Liceo de Cagayan University
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2015 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

 
Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Zagada, Samantha Alexis E.; Zabala, Jana Alyza S.; Yee, Jan Michael G.; Youn, Miro; Yutangco, Rafael
Publication:Asian Journal of Health
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:9PHIL
Date:Jan 1, 2015
Words:6427
Previous Article:Knowledge, Attitudes and Management Practices on Post-Operative Pain among Surgical Nurses in a Government Hospital.
Next Article:Enhancing Patient Management Skills of Physical Therapy Interns: An Action Research.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters