Introduction

Lifestyle (LS), according to (^{Lalonde. 1996}), is defined as the set of decisions that people make about their health over which they have a certain degree of control. The above definition gives an account of people’s responsibility regarding their health; in this sense, LS according to (^{Flórez. 2007}) is a set of habits that people adopt that may act as protective factors for health or risk factors of disease.

Thus, LS consists of a series of elements, such as eating habits, physical activity, relationships with others, the consumption of substances, precautionary behaviors, personality traits and work aspects among others, that are related to the state of people's health. When a LS is not healthy, it is a risk factor for developing a chronic disease (^{Cerecero, Hernández, Aguirre, Valdés, & Huitrón, 2009}).

In addition, it is important to highlight that LS is importantly related to psychological aspects, for example, ^{World Health Organization (WHO)} defines mental health as:

“Mental health is defined as a state of well-being in which every individual realizes his or her own potential, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to her or his community” (2018, parr.2).

Based on the above, the importance of psychological factors on LS can be noted. Psychologists have sought to identify what makes people adopt a healthy LS. Previously, the interest was focused on psychopathological aspects, but recently positive psychology has also looked at the positive qualities that individuals have, as well as the characteristics and environments of an optimal functioning that impel them towards a full life and well-being (^{Romero, Salas, Reinoza, García, & Moreno, 2013}; ^{Rodríguez-Muñoz & Sanz-Vergel, 2013}).

Within positive psychology, positive psychological functioning (PPF) models have been proposed to explain the resources that give an individual favorable health outcome, allow for a better adaptation to the environment and change, and are stable and assimilable.

Recently, (^{Merino and Privado. 2015}) consider that PPF evaluates 11 extensively studied psychological resources: self-esteem, resilience, curiosity, optimism, autonomy, vitality, environmental mastery, purpose in life, humor, enjoyment, and creativity. Self-esteem is defined as the global feeling of acceptance of oneself, of one's worth; resilience refers to the ability to overcome adversity and even grow with experience; curiosity is determined as the ability to be interested in knowing new things; optimism refers to the stable and widespread belief that positive things will happen; autonomy is the psychological domain of self- or perceived self-determination; vitality is understood as the feeling of being alive, alert and full of energy; environmental mastery is the ability to monitor, manage and effectively model the demands of daily life, and live in harmony with the purposes, needs and values ​​of oneself; purpose in life involves striving for and attaining objectives that give meaning to life; humor includes seeing the comedic side of life and being able to laugh and make others laugh easily; enjoyment is defined as the ability to identify and make positive experiences possible daily; and creativity is the ability of an individual to find original and valuable solutions to problems, whether new or daily.

Organizations need to provide better working conditions for their workers (^{Ferrari, Basile, & Prescilla, 2019}) since university administrative personnel have frequent exposure to risk factors for the development of a chronic non communicable disease, due, mainly, to factors including shift work, work stress and work demands (^{Schröer, Haupt, & Pieper, 2014}).

For example, in a study with Mexican workers of a public health institution it was identified that even they have a high exposure to risk factors, so the authors concluded that it is necessary to train workers to improve their LS and thus improve their health profile (^{Velasco-Contreras, 2013}). In the same sense, the study of (^{Morales et al. 2018}) in which lifestyle of university workers was evaluated indicates that the areas in which workers report dissatisfaction are health (in general) and vitality. In another study, also with university workers, (^{Jiménez et al. 2017}) identified that the level of lifestyle was medium.

(^{Joseph-Shehu and Ncama. 2020}) pointed out that factors influencing health promoting lifestyle behaviour of university workers were lack of institutional health policy and protocol, work overload, lack of planned and consistent health promotion awareness, and economic factors.

The above reflects the need to evaluate the lifestyle in the workplace, particularly when the workplace is the university because people who are part of a university, regularly function as social models, in this case, they could be models of a healthy LS and PPF.

Although there are no studies in which LS and PPF are related, a similar study identifies a relationship between a functional psychological capacity and a better health related to quality of life (^{González-Cantero et al., 2017}; ^{Uribe et al., 2010}).

Based on the above, the objective of this work is to evaluate the relationship of LS and PPF, and their differences by gender in university administrative personnel. It is assumed as a hypothesis that LS and PPF will have a statistically significant relationship and that there will be no differences between men and women in both variables.

Method

A cross-sectional correlational design was used to examine if changes in LS are related to PPF.

Results

No correlation between LS and PPF with age, sex or marital status was identified. With respect to the correlational analysis, LS has a statistically significant positive correlation with PPF (r = .355, p = .001); in addition, it is worth noting also that LS has significant positive correlations with all PPF factors except for Resilience. PPF factors, Environmental Mastery and Vitality (r = .464, p = .001 and r = .488, p = .001 respectively) stand out as statistically significant, moderate and positive correlations with LS. This implies that feeling alive, alert and full of energy (Vitality) and have the ability to monitor, manage and effectively model the demands of daily life, and live in harmony with the purposes, needs and values ​​of oneself (Environmental mastery) is correlated with LS in general but, particularly, with factor as Activity, Sleep/seatbelts/stress, Personality type, Insight and Career. The other correlations are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Correlations between lifestyle and positive psychological functioning. 

*= p < .05, ** = p < .01 (bilateral).

A simple linear regression was calculated to predict LS based on PPF. A significant regression equation was found (F [1, 100] = 14.400, p < .001), with an R ² of .126. Participants’ predicted LS is equal to 54.704 + .175 (PPF) when is measured in points. Participants’ average LS increased .175 for each point of PPF.

Based on the results of the correlations, also, the odds ratio was used to estimate the likelihood that a low PPF implies for having a low-level (unhealthy) LS; in this regard it is observed that having a low PPF implies a higher probability of having an unhealthy LS compared to the probability of having an unhealthy LS when the PFF has a high level (Ψ = 28.333, 4.965 - 161.675) as can be seen in table 2.

Table 2 Odds ratio by positive psychological functioning level. 

Regarding the differences in LS by gender, a statistically significant difference was identified only in the Insight factor, which is related to anxiety, worry and depression, where women obtained a lower average than men (see Table 3). This implies that both men and women have similar levels in LS factors, so it can be pointed out that sex, in this sample, is not a variable related to LS.

Table 3 Descriptive measures of lifestyle and their comparison by sex. 

*= p < .05.

In other hand, comparing PPF by gender, no statistically significant differences were identified either in the scale in general or in its factors (see Table 4). This implies that both men and women have similar levels in the PPF factors, so it can be pointed out that sex, in this sample, is not a variable related to PPF.

Table 4 Descriptive measures of positive psychological functioning and their comparison by sex. 

*= p < .05.

Discussion

Based on the results, a statistically significant correlation can be noted, albeit with a low coefficient, between LS and PPF, which is also evidenced by simple linear regression; in addition, the correlation of LS with the PPF factors Environmental Mastery and Vitality is moderate, which imply, in general, having the skills needed to face the demands of daily life and to strive to achieve the objectives that give meaning to life, respectively. This suggests the need to analyze and propose interventions that address the behavioral approach, but also the cognitive aspects related to LS.

It should be noted that the probability of a low PPF contributing to an unhealthy LS is an important consideration essentially because being informed about how to develop a healthy LS is not enough to achieve it.

There are no studies relating LS and PPF, but there are similar ones. For example, the study conducted by (^{Bränström. 2013}), in which a moderating role of positive states of mind on the association between perceived stress and psychological outcomes was confirmed. This suggests that people who experience a higher frequency of positive states of mind perceive a lower state of depression and anxiety, and better health. In another similar study by (^{Jiménez et al. 2017}), a positive and significant relationship was found between assertiveness and LS.

This study identifies a low LS in university administrative personnel, so an intervention to improve LS might be necessary as (^{Camacho, Echeverría and Reynoso. 2010}) recommend based on the results of a study with university workers, in which 67 of the 86 participants were identified as presenting some risk for suffering from a chronic non-communicable disease, either because of their hereditary background or their LS.

In a study by (^{Joseph-Shehu et al. 2019}) age, sex and marital status were factors that statistically influenced LS while in this study, the same factors did not correlate with LS. Also, in the same study by ^{Joseph-Shehu et al}. LS has a medium level while in this study 87% of the sample had a low level of LS.

Concerning PPF, there is evidence that it contributes to achieving optimum physical health (^{Kubzansky, Boehm, & Segerstrom, 2015}), partly because it generates biological processes that benefit health, but also because according to the results it is a variable that relate to LS.

For example, the study by (^{Casellas-Grau, Vives, Font and Ochoa. 2016}), which reviews studies related to PPF in patients with breast cancer, points out the need for health professionals to consider the psychosocial aspects of patients to promote positive functioning.

As to the differences by gender, regarding LS, only the Insight factor had a statistically significant difference, where men scored higher than women. This contrasts with the results found in (^{Sharratt, Sharratt, Smith, Howell and Davenport. 1984}), where women scored higher than men in this domain, as well as in Tobacco and Career. Also, (^{Simpson, Albert, Wilson, Ciliska and Evans. 1984}) identified a statistically significant difference between genders in LS, where women scored higher than men, nevertheless, they suggest that the differences were too small to have practical relevance. On other hand, (^{Castiblanco, López, López, Menjura and Forero. 2016}) found no differences in gender in the global LS scale in health-care workers.

Concerning PPF, there were no statistically significant differences found in gender, and other studies that have included this variable, have not reported any differences in their results.

To conclude, these results show the feasibility of assessing lifestyle, particularly in university administrative personnel to then propose interventions to help them develop a healthier lifestyle. It is necessary, in order to achieve a healthy university, to address the needs not only of the students and teachers, but also of university administrative personnel.