Page 183 - GHES-3-2

Global Health Economics and
Sustainability
Health awareness survey of university students

in the survey: “Do you think it is useful for you to install 3.4. Willingness to participate in health promotion
a bicycle repair station on campus with an air pump and at university
some basic gadgets for small repairs?’’ Three-quarters The survey concluded by asking if students were interested
of respondents reacted positively to this idea (Figure 13). in actively participating in health promotion activities on
This question was included to encourage university campus, from idea collection and intervention design to
management to initiate the bike repair station project. implementation.
On the topic of social well-being, students suggested The smallest group consisted of students interested in
organizing activities that foster social connections, such such actions (7.7%), who provided their contact details
as gatherings during lunch breaks. Students who are also for further collaboration on health promotion at Campus
parents expressed the need for more support, including Kleefeld.
meetings for parents to connect and potentially assist each
other with childcare, as well as a playroom on campus. In contrast, almost half the respondents (48.8%)
expressed no interest. When asked why, the most common
A recurring concern was the lack of communication
about various interventions. Earlier survey questions reason was a lack of time due to family life, studies, or work.
The second most frequent reason was a perceived lack of
revealed that some interventions were unknown to students, knowledge or expertise. Some students noted that there
largely due to insufficient or invisible communication. were no concrete benefits associated with participation,
A related suggestion was to incorporate more health topics such as credit points or reference letters.
during lectures. This was also reflected in the response to
whether health promotion should be covered during class A large group of students (43.5%) was hesitant about
time, with 75.6% of respondents answering positively participating. The reason for their doubt was quite similar:
(Figure 14). uncertainty about the time commitment required for
cooperation in a working group, given their scarce time.
Another recurring reason was their impending graduation,
meaning they would no longer be on campus in subsequent
semesters.

4. Limitations
The survey methodology employed a baseline assessment
and a practice-oriented approach. This approach was
chosen for its speed, insightfulness, and dual purpose: to
measure the current level of awareness among students
and to inform them about the university’s existing health-
associated activities. The survey utilized a non-random
convenience sampling method on campus over 17 days,
complemented by an online survey distributed via student
email. However, this method is susceptible to several
potential biases.
One concern is survey fatigue, exacerbated by the
Figure 13. Agreement on the idea of installing a bike repair station on frequent participation in many online surveys and the
campus general lack of time, which many students mentioned in
the results. Students in Faculty V often study part-time
while balancing professional and family responsibilities.
Another potential issue is self-selection bias, where
individuals with particular characteristics or interests are
more likely to participate, potentially skewing results. This
could lead to biased findings if only students who identify
with the topic’s importance or have higher expectations
due to greater knowledge or motivation participate, such
as those from the Nursing and Health Care department.
Figure 14. The agreement on the integration of health promotion in study To mitigate these issues, the survey was designed to
courses be as concise as possible, minimizing the time needed for

Volume 3 Issue 2 (2025) 175 https://doi.org/10.36922/ghes.4290