Abstract
Background Adolescence is a vulnerable period for many lifestyle risk behaviors. In this study, we investigated the clustering of risk behaviors and role of the school health promotion programs among adolescents in Vietnam.
Methods We analyzed data of 7,541 adolescents aged 13–17y from the 2019 nationally representative Global School-based Student Health Survey, conducted in 20 provinces and cities in Vietnam. We applied the latent class analysis to identify groups of clustering and used Bayesian 2-level logistic regressions to evaluate the effects of school health promotion programs on these clusters. We reassessed the school effect size by incorporating different informative priors to the Bayesian models.
Findings The most frequent lifestyle risk behavior among Vietnamese adolescents was unhealthy diet (∼67%), followed by sedentary behavior (37% in boys and 48% in girls) and low fruit/vegetable intake (∼31%). More than half of students had a cluster of at least two risk factors and a quarter with three risk factors. Latent class analysis detected 18% boys and 15% girls being at high-risk of lifestyle behaviors. Consistent through different priors, high quality of health promotion programs associated with lower the odds of lifestyle risk behaviors (highest quality schools vs. lowest quality schools; boys: Odds ratio (OR) = 0·69, 95% Highest Density Interval (HDI): 0·49 – 0·99; girls: OR = 0·62, 95% HDI: 0·42 – 0·92).
Interpretation Our findings demonstrated the clustering of specific lifestyle risk behaviors among Vietnamese adolescents, suggesting a special need for required courses in schools and join interventions that target sex-specific multiple risk behaviors.
Funding The 2019 Global School-based Student Health Survey was conducted with financial support from the World Health Organization. The authors received no funding for the data analysis, data interpretation, manuscript writing, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Evidence before this study Adolescence is a vulnerable period for many lifestyle risk behaviors which normally cluster and interact to exponentially elevate the risks of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). The school might play an essential role in preventing risk behaviors and motivating healthy lifestyle behaviors for in-school adolescents. We searched on PubMed and Google Scholar to identify peer-reviewed articles published in English between Jan 1, 2000 and November 25, 2020; using keywords (“health behaviors” OR “lifestyle risk behaviors “OR “health risk behaviors” OR “tobacco” OR smok* OR “alcohol” OR “physical activity” OR “physical inactivity” OR “fruit intake” OR “vegetable intake” OR “diet”) AND (cluster* OR “co-occurrence”) AND (“adolescent” OR “teenager” OR “youth” OR “student”). We complemented the searching database with a manual search on reference lists. We identified 39 studies that evaluated the clustering of risk behaviors among adolescents (Supplemental materials S1). Two-thirds of the studies were conducted in high-income countries. The evidence from low- and middle-income countries is currently limited in some countries; however, most of these studies used descriptive techniques to analyze the co-occurring behaviors, i.e., treating the effects of risk behaviors equally or computing the observed prevalence-to-expected prevalence ratio, which hardly evaluates the underlying association among these co-occurrences. Furthermore, no studies have focused on the role of school health promotion programs in preventing the high-risk cluster of these behaviors.
Added value of this study Our study is a pioneer in using analytical technique to investigate the clustering pattern of six major lifestyle risk behaviors of NCDs (smoking, drinking, physical inactivity, sedentary behavior, low fruit/vegetable intake, and unhealthy diet) among school-going adolescents in Vietnam. We found more than half of adolescents had a cluster of at least two factors and a quarter had three factors, with the common clusters being unhealthy diet, sedentary behaviors, low fruit/vegetable intake (in girls), and drinking (in boys). Using latent class analysis, we identified 18·1% of boys and 14·7% of girls were at high-risk pattern of lifestyle behaviors. Consistent across scenarios, Bayesian multilevel models showed that the quality of school health promotion programs was associated with minimizing the high-risk cluster of lifestyle behaviors.
Implications of all available evidence Our findings highlight the need for required courses in school with high-quality content for essential joint knowledge and skills to prevent multiple lifestyle risk behaviors. This becomes urgent as the current curriculum is not required in Vietnam, therefore, although the high prevalence of students completed a module for preventing an individual risk behavior; a limited number of them achieved three such modules. We also emphasize separated intervention for boys and girls since the patterns of lifestyle risk behaviors combination are different by sexes.
Introduction
Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are responsible for almost 70% of all deaths worldwide [1] and becoming more common among youth nowadays [2]. According to WHO, two-thirds of premature deaths in adults are associated with childhood risk behaviors, such as 81% of youth aged 11–17 years were physical inactivity and 11·7% were heavy drinking [3]. Most NCDs share predisposing risk factors, for example, people suffered from diabetes and cancer as concurrent exposure to unhealthy diets, physical inactivity, and harmful use of tobacco and/or alcohol [3]. These factors are unlikely to isolate, but, instead, typically cluster and interact to exponentially elevate the risks of NCDs [4]. Findings in more than 300,000 adolescents from 89 countries showed that 82·4% of them exposed to several NCDs risk factors, including unhealthy diet and physical inactivity; or unhealthy diet and cigarette smoking [5].
Adolescence is a critical period for developing and forming a healthy lifestyle [6], and also a vulnerable period for several unhealthy behaviors which might continue into maturity [7]. Adolescents tend to be involved in more than one problem due to shared linkages of such behaviors [8-11]. As adolescents studied in school; this setting becomes an ideal place for targeted lifestyle programs aimed to equip healthy behaviors before their transition into adulthood [12]. Understanding the cluster of NCDs risk factors and the role of school in alleviating such factors is essential to improve adolescent health and reduce subsequent disease burden in adulthood.
In Vietnam, a surged prevalence of NCDs in recent years is associated with the country’s remarkable economic growth and lifestyle changes [13]. In 2016, NCDs contributed to 73% of total deaths due to dietary risks, tobacco smoke, alcohol use, and physical inactivity [14]. The Vietnam national NCDs strategy 2015-2025 focuses on preventing NCDs among adolescents aimed to reduce smoking prevalence below 3·6%; overweight and obesity prevalence below 10% in this population [15].
Existing literature about the clustering of lifestyle risk behaviors in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is currently limited in some countries. However, most of the prior studies used descriptive techniques to treat effects of risk behaviors equally that hardly assessed the actual pattern i.e., using arbitrary cut-off points [16] or determining high-risk groups via the ratio of observed-to-expected prevalence [17, 18]. None has focused on the roles of school health promotion programs. In Vietnam, to the best of our knowledge, no study published on clustering of risk behaviors to date. In this paper, we aim to describe a clustering pattern of six lifestyle risk behaviors (smoking, drinking, physical inactivity, sedentary behaviors, low fruit/vegetable intake, and unhealthy diet) using latent class analysis (LCA) - an analytical technique to find underlying patterns of such behaviors. We also aim to investigate the roles of the school health promotion programs on these behavior patterns using Bayesian multilevel models with different informative priors.
Methods
Study population and survey design
The 2019 Global School-based Student Health Survey (GSHS) is a population-based survey of school-going adolescents aged 13-17 years, which has been conducted over 101 countries [19], providing data on different aspects of adolescent behaviors and protective factors to help countries develop suitable adolescent health programs and policies [19]. In this study, we used the national representative sample of Vietnam, which was conducted from May to December 2019 across 20 provinces and cities in Vietnam.
Questionnaire development
The 2019 Vietnam GSHS employed a set of global self-administered questions that adapted to the local socio-cultural context. A panel including four language and content experts was established to validate the content. First, the experts translated forward the original English questionnaire into Vietnamese, then backward translation from Vietnamese into English. The original English version was compared to backward translation to check consistency. Face validity was assessed from a pilot study through pre-testing the translated questionnaire in 120 students in one secondary school and one high school in Hanoi city, Vietnam. The validated questionnaire has two main components: socio-demographics (age, gender, living status, and place of residence) and health behaviors (alcohol use, tobacco use, dietary behavior, self-perceived body mass index (BMI) status, illicit drug use, mental health, physical activity, sexual behaviors, and violence and unintentional injuries).
Sample size and sampling procedures
We used a two-stage cluster sampling method to recruit adolescents. At the first stage, we chose schools based on probability proportional to size method, then following by the selection of classes using the simple random sampling technique at the second stage. Two classes for each secondary school (grades 8 and 9) and three classes for each high school (grades 10, 11, and 12) were selected. All students who were 13–17 years old and had Vietnamese citizenship in selected classes were eligible to participate. The sample included 7,796 students in 210 classes from 81 schools. The school response rate of 96·4% and the student response rate of 97·0% made up the overall response rate of 93·5%.
Before data collection, school administrators assisted to distribute written assent forms to the parents/guardians in selected classes. Parents/guardians were asked to return the forms regardless of their agreement. During data collection days, we only recruited students with parental permission to participate into the study. Trained researchers briefed and guided on the self-administered questionnaire, then students marked their responses on a separate computer scan-able answer sheet. The time to complete the questionnaire was maximum 30 minutes. All completed anonymous sheets were sealed in envelopes to ensure confidentiality.
Variables
Lifestyle risk behaviors
Smoking
We defined the current smoking status by asking students the number of days that they used any tobacco products in the past 30 days. The variable response was dichotomized into “0 days” and “at least 1 day”
Alcohol consumption
We assessed the current drinking by a question on the number of days that students drank at least one standard drink of alcoholic beverage (∼14gram of pure alcohol) in the past 30 days. The variable response was categorized as “0 days” and “at least 1 day”.
Physical inactivity
We asked students a question on the number of days that they had at least 60 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity in the past seven days. We defined the physical inactivity if respondents reported “0 days” to this question [18].
Sedentary behavior
To assess the sedentariness, we asked students a question on the hour spent sitting on an average day in the past seven days. We classified respondents as having sedentary behavior if they s pent at least three hours a day [18].
Low fruit/vegetable intake
We asked students questions on the average daily frequency intake of fruits and vegetables in the past 30 days. We defined the low fruit/vegetable intake if they did not consume both fruits and vegetables at least two times per day [20].
Unhealthy diet
We defined unhealthy diet students if they drank carbonated soft drinks at least one time per day during the 30 days before the survey or ate fast-food at least one day during the 7 days before the survey.
School health promotion programs
We created five variables aggregated at the school level about whether students received training for soft-skills, including (1) the benefits of eating more fruits and vegetables, (2) signs of depression and suicidal behaviors, (3) problems associated with drinking alcohol, (4) problems associated with using drugs, and (5) benefits of physical activity. From these five indicators, we constructed the proxy measurement of school health promotion programs quality by using PCA to compute a composite index and then categorize it into tertiles [21], with higher tertiles indicating better school program quality.
Other covariates
The other covariates include demographic characteristics (age, place of residence, living with mother/father), parental monitoring, peer-relationship (number of close friends), mental health (loneliness and worrying), truancy, and sexual intercourse. The details on variable definitions are provided in Supplemental materials S2.
Data analysis
After removing missing values on covariates (3·3%.), the complete case sample analyzed in this paper was 7,541 (3,495 boys and 4,046 girls).
Descriptive analysis
We used frequencies and percentages to summarize categorical variables, mean and standard deviation (SD) to describe continuous variables. We adjusted all estimations for the complex survey design, including sampling weights, clustering, and stratification. To describe the combinations of six lifestyle risk behaviors, we used the UpSet diagrams [22], which visualize complex intersections of a lifestyle risk behaviors matrix where the rows represent different sets of combinations and the columns represent the number of students who had these combinations.
Lifestyle risk behaviors clustering and related factors
We developed an analysis framework (Figure 1) that includes two steps to analyze the clustering and related factors.
LCA: Latent Class Analysis; PCA: Principal Component Analysis
In the first step, we used LCA to identify homogeneous unobservable subgroups of lifestyle risk behaviors. LCA is a statistical method for identifying unmeasured class membership among subjects using categorical or continuous observed variables [23]. To explore the potential number of latent classes, we tested the LCA with a different number of classes (i.e., from two to five classes). We determined the final number of classes based on the empirical evidence and interpretability of the class memberships [23]. The details in LCA results were provided in the Supplemental materials S3.
In the second step, we fitted a series of Bayesian 2-level random intercept logistic regressions with students at level-1, and school at level-2 to evaluate the effects of factors in school and student levels on latent class memberships obtained from LCA in the first step. Multilevel modeling was used to account for the nature of hierarchical data i.e., students nested in schools. We applied the vague priors (i.e., flat prior for model parameters). Model 1 was a null model with no independent variable, Model 2 included the school-level factors (X1j), and Model 3 controlled for both school-level and student-level covariates (X2ij).
The priors for model parameters were specified as:
Where μ0j is the school-specific residual that presents the deviate of each school from the median log odds of high risk of lifestyle behaviors. For each model, we calculated the variance partition coefficient (VPC) and the proportion of variance explained by the added factors (i.e., % explained). Since logistic regression has a variance of 3·29 [24], the VPC is defined as VPC = σ2μ0/(σ2μ0 + 3·29). To obtain % explained, we subtracted the variance of the simpler model to the model with more terms and then converted to percentages.
We presented the median of posterior distributions as odds ratio (OR) with 95% highest density interval (95% HDI). We also calculated the probability of the posterior distribution of school effect size (i.e., ORs) less than the cut-offs of 1, 0·9, and 0·8 as well as Bayes factors (BF). The BF is the ratio of the likelihood of a specific hypothesis to the opposite hypothesis [25]. Therefore, in this case, the larger value of the BF indicates the stronger evidence of the hypothesis that the school effect size was lower than the cut-offs.
Sensitivity analysis
We conducted sensitivity analyses to test whether the school effects remain consistent across different priors. We constructed two priors to reflect two degrees of belief that the school health promotion programs had either no impact (equivocal prior) or positively impact (optimistic prior) on lifestyle risk behaviors of students. We assumed that prior distributions of school effects were the normal distribution (i.e., β1 ∼ Normal(μ, σ2)).
Details of sensitivity analyses were provided in Supplemental materials S4.
We fitted the Bayesian multilevel models using Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC) algorithm. With the expected effect sample sizes were greater than 10000, we generated four HMC chains in parallel, the iterations of 8000, the burn-in period of 1000, and the thinning of 2. The convergence of HMC chains was diagnosed by trace plot and the Gelman-Rubin coefficient [26].
We used Stata v16 SE (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA) to clean the data and conduct descriptive analysis; R (version 4·0·0, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) to conduct the LCA using package poLCA [27] and the Bayesian multilevel models using package brms that interfaces with Stan [26].
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in this study followed the ethical standards of the Institution Review Board of Hanoi University of Public Health (IRB decision No. 421/2019/YTCC-HD3, dated: 06/08/2019).
Results
Participant characteristics
Table 1 describes the characteristics of the study participants. More than half of students were girls (54·1%) and nearly two thirds of them lived in rural areas. Most of them lived with their mother or father and had more than two close friends. The proportion of students felt lonely and anxious in the past 12 months was 11·7% and 4·8% in boys and 12·8% and 7·2% in girls, respectively. The percentages of students truanted in the past 30 days were 17·1% and 13·0% among boys and girls, 6·6% of boys and 3·5% of girls experienced sexual intercourse.
More than 70% of students were taught about the benefits of eating more fruits and vegetables, problems associated with drinking alcohol, drug consequences, and benefits of physical activity, but only about 20% of them received training about signs of depression and suicidal behaviors. Less than half of students achieved three such modules together (45·4% in boys and 45·9% in girls). Results from PCA analysis showed that more than 40% of students studied in high-quality schools.
Distribution of lifestyle risk behaviors
Figure 2 shows the profile of lifestyle risk behaviors among in-school adolescents in Vietnam. The unhealthy diet was the most frequent lifestyle risk behavior, with 66·7% among girls and 66·4% among boys, followed by sedentary behavior and low fruit/vegetable intake. The percentage of smoking and drinking were higher among boys than girls (4·4% vs. 1·0%, and 24·7% vs. 20·0%, respectively). In contrast, girls were more inactive than boys, with a high prevalence of physical inactivity (23·1% vs. 17·1%) and sedentary behavior (47·8% vs. 37·3%). Almost all students had at least one risk factor (89·7% in boys and 90·7% in girls). Many students had a cluster of two (57·3% in boys and 60·9% in girls) and three factors (25·5% in boys and 28·1% in girls). Only ∼10% students had none of the six risk factors. Boys and girls equally distributed in each category of the number of risk factors.
Figure 3 describes 64 combinations formed by six lifestyle risk behaviors. The most frequent cluster in both boys and girls was unhealthy diet and sedentary behaviors. The second most frequent combination was an unhealthy diet, sedentary behavior, and low fruit/vegetable intake in girls, while an unhealthy diet, sedentary behavior, and drinking in boys.
Cluster of lifestyle risk behaviors
Based on the criteria of empirical evidence and interpretability from LCA analysis, we decided to choose two latent classes as the outcome for the clustering of lifestyle risk behaviors modeling (i.e., high-risk cluster of lifestyle behaviors: yes/no). Table 2 presents the distribution of lifestyle risk behaviors among participants by two class memberships. We detected 18·1% of boys and 14·7% of girls were at high-risk cluster of lifestyle behaviors. Details on LCA results were in the Supplemental material S3.
Role of the school health promotion programs on high-risk cluster of lifestyle behaviors
Table 3 shows factors related to a high level of lifestyle risk behaviors in Vietnamese boy and girl adolescents. After controlling for student-level covariates, students in high-quality schools (3rd tertile) were less likely to have high level of lifestyle risk behaviors than those in low-quality schools (1st tertile) (Boys: OR = 0·69, 95% HDI: 0·49 – 0·99; Girls: OR = 0·62, 95% HDI: 0·42 – 0·92).
Sensitivity analysis
Figure 4 and Supplemental materials S4 provide the sensitivity analysis of the effects of school health promotion programs on students’ behaviors. These effects were different due to different priors, however, yielded the same conclusion: high-quality schools were associated with lower odds of high level of lifestyle risk behaviors in both boys and girls. Among boys, the proportion of posterior distribution less than the cutoff of OR = 1 was from 95·1% (BF = 19·4) in equivocal prior to 99·9% (BF > 10000) in the optimistic prior. Among girls, all results favored the hypothesis that the proportion of posterior distribution was less than the cutoff of OR = 1, with a minimum of 97·8% (BF = 44·5) in the equivocal prior. However, in equivocal prior, only 49·2% the posterior distribution of the effects of school quality on students’ behaviors was below the cutoff of OR = 0.8 among boys, the figure for girls was 64·9%.
All models were adjusted for age, place of residence, living with mother/father, parental monitoring, number of close friend, loneliness, worrying, truancy, and sexual intercourse.
Other factors related to high-risk cluster of lifestyle behaviors
In both sexes, parental monitoring is associated with lower odds of lifestyle risk behaviors. In contrast, older students, those who felt lonely, did truancy, or had sexual intercourse were more likely to have a higher level of lifestyle risk behaviors than those who did not. We also found that living in urban areas and having anxiety were associated with higher lifestyle risk behaviors among girls (Table 3).
Discussion
This is the first study to investigate the prevalence, clustering pattern of six major lifestyle risk behaviors of NCDs (smoking, drinking, physical inactivity, sedentary behavior, low fruit/vegetable intake, and unhealthy diet) and its determinants among school-going adolescents aged 13-17 years in the nationwide scope in Vietnam. We found that lifestyle risk behaviors were common in Vietnamese adolescents. Among all NCDs’ risk factors, unhealthy diet constituted the highest proportion in both boys and girls, followed by sedentary behavior and low fruit/vegetable intake. More than half of students had at least two behavioral risk factors, including a quarter with more than three factors. These factors tend to be clustered with the common patterns among unhealthy diet and sedentary behaviors in both sexes, low fruit/vegetable intake in girls, and drinking in boys. The school health promotion programs quality is associated with lower the odds of lifestyle risk behaviors. Our study provides important empirical evidence to guide health promotion, education, and interventional programs of these lifestyle risk behaviors.
Previous studies have demonstrated the health risk behaviors among adolescents, however, we cautioned our comparisons due to variations in investigating different risk factors, definitions and cut-off points; and differing in targeted populations. Compared to a study in 2538 Malaysian school-going adolescents that employed the same definitions for smoking, alcohol use, sedentary behavior, and low fruit/vegetable intake, Vietnamese ones had a higher prevalence of alcohol use (24·7% in Vietnamese boys and 20·0% in Vietnamese girls vs. 6·6% in Malaysian boys and 3·5% in Malaysian girls) but lower levels of smoking, sedentary behavior, and low fruit/vegetable intake [18]. However, compared to another study conducted among 3990 Brazilian adolescents, Vietnamese adolescents had a similar prevalence of drinking alcohol (∼25%) but lower in smoking (4·4% in boys and 1% in girls in the present study vs 5·7%) [17].
Clustering multiple lifestyle risk behaviors are prevalent in Vietnamese adolescents. The prevalence of simultaneous occurrences of at least two risk behaviors was lower than that reported among Malaysian adolescents (∼60% vs. 83%) [18] while fairly similar to Canadian children and adolescents (64%) [28] and Brazilian adolescents (53·8% in boys and 71·1%) [17]. In concordance with previous literature, an unhealthy diet and sedentary behavior were prone to cluster either alone or together with other risk behaviors in both sexes [29, 30]. These findings follow Jessor’ s problem-behavior theory that adolescents engaged in one problem behavior tend to be involved in other problems due to the shared linkages of such behaviors in the social ecology [8]. We recommend that joint interventions on multiple risk behaviors can be more effective than individual approaches to tackle these synergistic clustering effects.
We observed more profound clustering effects of lifestyle risk behaviors in Vietnamese girls than in boys, and such findings corroborated current evidence [17, 18, 28]. Although generally known as lower risk-takers [31], girl adolescents who engaged in one high-risk behavior tend to be more involved in others than their boy counterparts. Furthermore, they have higher levels of perceived stress [32], a tendency to ruminate, and feelings of helplessness than boys [33] that could predispose them to engage in dysfunctional coping measures [34]. Previous evidence indicated that adolescent girls were more likely to be influenced by psychosocial motives [32, 33] and therefore more likely to engage in unhealthy risk behaviors [34]. As such, in-depth investigations into the actual causal factors could probably shed some light on the significant determinants of the clustering of risk behaviors among Vietnamese girls. This finding implicated the separated design of public health interventions for boys and girls are needed.
Our evidence supports the idea that the school health promotion programs are important for promoting and supporting healthy lifestyles among adolescents [35-37]. Previous studies indicated that school-based interventions are effective and feasible to improve healthy dietary habits, physical activity levels, and weight control [38]. Schools also reach a wide range of children over a considerable amount of time. Therefore, enhancing the school health promotion programs could be a prominent way to improve children’s health and well-being [39, 40]. In Vietnam, education on preventing lifestyle risk behaviors is not prerequisites in school; they are considered as elective modules; therefore, the quality, as well as content, might be not sufficient. It is noticed that despite of the high prevalence of studying an individual module for preventing lifestyle risk behavior, only less than half of students completed three or more such modules. This lack of joint knowledge on preventing lifestyle risk behaviors might lead to the pervasiveness of lifestyle risk behaviors in our sample. We highlight a need for the required courses that not only training on the harms of each risk behavior separately but also emphasize the connection of these behaviors [41].
Regarding sensitivity analysis, we used the Bayesian approach to analyze the effect of school health promotion programs quality on students’ behaviors among different scenarios of belief. All the scenarios, even in the equivocal view which is conservative to our belief, yield the same conclusion, it is more certain and confident to claim the robustness of findings. Another advantage of using Bayesian approach is its ability to measure the effect size. In our study, we found the strong evidence that high tertile of school health promotion programs quality had positively affect students’ behaviors (i.e., ORs < 1) compared to low tertile of quality, however, this effect became uncertain when compared to the cutoff of 0·8, (i.e., only 49·2% and 64·9% the posterior distribution was below the cutoff of OR = 0·8 among boys and girls in the equivocal prior, respectively). Together, our findings suggest that the effect size of school health promotion programs quality on students’ behaviors probably ranges from 0·8 to 1.
Strengths of our study included using robust statistical technique to investigate clusters of NCDs risk factors and its determinants among adolescents using large national representative sample. We used latent class analysis that was able to identify the underlying pattern of lifestyle risk behaviors co-occurrence and Bayesian regression models with different informative priors to investigate the relationship between these cluster and school health promotion programs. This is the first study to investigate the current status of lifestyle risk behaviors in Vietnam. Most current evidence investigating clusters of risk factors was done on adult populations or in high-income countries; not many studies conducted in low-middle income countries. Despite its innovative approach, the present analysis has certain limitations. First, information on lifestyle risk behaviors was self-reported, which may lead to under or overestimation. Second, we are unable to collect various aspects of parental factors, such as parental education, income, social-economic status, which maybe potential predictors of clustering risk behaviors. Third, although most adolescents in Vietnam are in school, our study focused only in-school adolescents, which may not represent for those who are not in school.
Conclusion
Our findings demonstrated the clustering of specific combinations of lifestyle risk behaviors among Vietnamese adolescents. There is a need to allocate resources for school-based interventions that target these combinations separated for boys and girls. A deeper understanding of clustered patterns may lead to developing new and comprehensive interventions to prevent the burden of NCDs in Vietnamese adolescents.
Data Availability
The datasets analyzed for the current study are not publicly available but are available upon reasonable request.
Declarations
Declaration of Interests
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Consent to participate
Written informed consent was obtained from all participants’ parents/guardians before the study.
Data sharing statement
The datasets analyzed for the current study are not publicly available but are available upon reasonable request.
Authors’ contributions
Conceptualization: KQL
Literature review: KQL, HTNA, and OPT
Data curation: KQL, TTTH, and NTL
Formal Analysis: KQL
Results interpretation: KQL, HTNA, and NHP
Methodology: KQL and NHP
Funding acquisition: HVM
Project administration: TTTH and HVM
Supervision: NTL, PTQN, MT, and KP
Visualization: KQL
Writing – original draft: KQL, HTNA, and NHP
Writing – review & editing: TTTH, KP, MT, NTL, PTQN, LPA, LVT, TQB, OPT, NVH, VTHL, and HVM
All authors read and approved the final manuscript
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank all students who participated in the study as well as the individuals and institutions that made this study possible: Departments of Education and Training from selected provinces, principals, and teachers from 81 schools who helped us to prepare for the data collection. Associate Prof. Tran Dac Phu and Dr. Truong Dinh Bac from the General Department of Preventive Medicine – Ministry of Health; Mr. Nguyen Thanh De and Mr. Le Manh Hung from the Ministry of Education and Training; Ms. Leanne Riley from World Health Organization; Ms. Veronica Lea, Ms. Curtis Blanton and Mr. Timothy McManus from the US CDC; and Mr. Cao Huu Quang from Hanoi University of Public Health.
References
