| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺東大學 === 健康促進與休閒管理碩士在職專班 === 96 === The main purpose of this study was to understand the health promoting lifestyles, functional fitness status and demographic variables for retired government employees and teachers in Taitung County. The adopted instruments were health promoting lifestyle scale, demographic data, and examination of functional fitness. Moreover, the subjects of the study were the retired government employees and teachers at the age over 56 in Taitung County. A cross-sectional study design was conducted via questionnaires and the examination of functional fitness. Total valid samples were 403 copies. In addition, the data was analyzed by Descriptive Statistics, Independent-Samples T Test, One-way ANOVA, and Pearson Product-moment Correlation. The findings were as follows：
(1)The scores of health promoting lifestyles from high to low were nutrition＞interpersonal support＞self-actualization＞exercise＞stress management＞health responsibility.
(2)Different background variables of age, sex, marriage status, resident status, economic income, occupation before retirement, smoking or not, drinking alcohol or not had less difference from the scores of health promoting lifestyles. Education level, BMI and self-report chronic illnesses had specific difference from the scores of health promoting lifestyles. Moreover, people whose education level above university had better health promoting lifestyles than people whose education level below junior high. Overweight people had better health promoting lifestyles than people whose weight are too light. People who considered themselves self-report chronic illnesses had better health promoting lifestyles than people who considered themselves over three kinds of self-report chronic illnesses.
(3)Females whose shoulder flexibility, lower-body flexibility and agility/dynamic balance are better than males. Functional fitness of smoking or not had had no significant differences. Functional fitness scores variables of lower-body muscular strength, shoulder flexibility, lower-body flexibility, upper-body muscular strength, agility/dynamic balance, aerobic endurance and BMI had specific difference from age. As for the lower-body muscular strength, shoulder flexibility, lower-body flexibility, upper-body muscular strength, people whose age between 56 and 60 were better than people over 76 and people whose age between 61 and 65 were better than people whose age between 71and 75.
(4)Self-actualization, health responsibility, exercise, nutrition, interpersonal support and stress management reached the intermediate level in subscales and also had lower association with functional fitness. On the other hand, health responsibility, exercise, nutrition, interpersonal support and stress management reached the intermediate level in subscales.
|
|---|
