Few studies have evaluated and contrasted the lifestyles and quality of life of university students by academic discipline. We compared university students’ lifestyle and quality of life, and schools’ compliance with health promotion guidelines. Then, needs were ranked and prioritized. This was a cross-sectional study carried out in a public university in Northeastern Mexico. Higher education students with no visual or hearing impairment from six different academic disciplines were included (N = 5443). A self-administered and anonymous questionnaire was applied that included the HPLP (Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile) and SF-12 scales. A check list was employed for measuring 26 on-site schools’ compliance with health promotion guidelines, and needs were ranked using Z-scores. The mean lifestyle was 53.9 ± 14.8 and the mean quality of life was 69.7 ± 5. Men had healthier lifestyles with more exercise and better stress management. The mean compliance with health promotion guidelines was 58.7%. Agricultural Sciences students had the highest need for improving both lifestyle and quality of life. Arts, Education, and Humanities, Engineering and Technology, and Social and Administrative Sciences schools ranked first in need for health promotion actions. The methodology used allowed hierarchization of areas requiring planning and implementation of specific actions, and the results indicated that healthy lifestyles and quality of life should be a priority.

A few studies examined the comparative side effects of Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) vaccines. We compared the extension and severity of self-reported side effects of seven COVID-19 vaccines [BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), CoronaVac (Sinovac Life Sciences), Gam-COVID-Vac (Gamaleya's Sputnik V), Ad5-nCoV (CanSinoBIO), and Ad26.CoV2.S (Johnson & Johnson/Janssen)] in the Mexican population. We also evaluated the association of type of vaccine, sex, age, comorbidity, and history of allergies to the extent and severity of side effects. This was a cross-sectional study carried out online between August 12 and September 3, 2021 in Mexico. The first inclusion criterion was to receive a COVID-19 vaccine and the second, being at least 18 years old. The survey link was distributed via multiple social media platforms. We questioned about the type of vaccine and symptoms based on short-term side effects reported in the literature. Side effect extension was classified as local, systemic, or both. We asked about the need to take medicine, stop activities/miss work, or seek medical attention. Then, a severity index was constructed based on responses. Descriptive and stepwise multivariate logistic ordinal regression analyses were used to calculate odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI for each outcome adjusted by potential confounders. The mean age was 38.9 ± 11.0 years (n = 4,024). Prevalence of at least one side effect varied between vaccines and by a number of doses. At dose 1, ChAdOx1 was the vaccine with the highest rate of at least one side effect (85%) followed by Gam-COVID-Vac (80%). Both were associated to greater extension (adjusted OR 2.53, 95% CI 2.16, 2.96 and adjusted OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.76, 3.29, respectively) and severity of side effects (adjusted OR 4.32, 95% CI 3.73, 5.00 and adjusted OR 3.00, 95% CI 2.28, 3.94, respectively). Young age (<50 years), female sex, comorbidity, and history of allergies were associated with greater extension and severity, independent of the type of vaccine and potential confounders. At dose 2, mRNA-1273 was the vaccine with the highest rate of side effects (88%) and the only vaccine associated to greater extension (adjusted OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.59, 5.21) and severity of symptoms (adjusted OR 3.14, 95% CI 1.82, 5.43). Continuous studies are necessary to acknowledge more post-vaccine symptoms in different populations.