本研究旨在探討國立臺灣師範大學一年級學生健康危險因子的分佈情形及其相關因素，以及應用「健康危險評估」來進行衛生教育，以改善大專院校學生生活中的健康危險因子的效果，進而做為推展學生健康促進計畫之參考。
本研究以國立臺灣師範大學八十五學年度全體一年級學生為母群，採系統隨機抽樣方式，抽取 300人為樣本。本研究採前後測實驗設計，將樣本學生以學系為基本單位，隨機分配成實驗I組、實驗II組和對照組共三組，其中實驗I組施予一般衛生教育，實驗II組施予「健康危險評估」的衛生教育，對照組則未施予任何衛生教育，以便進行比較。
本研究的主要結果如下:
一、國立臺灣師範大學一年級學生的健康危險因子分佈情形，屬生活方面主要的是：「運動量及避兔運動傷害的知能不足」、「均衡膳食的攝取並不理想」、「不關心自己的血壓」、「經常在路邊攤進食」、「急救知識、技術不足」、「口腔衛生習慣不佳」、「經常熬夜，睡眠不足」、「騎機車超速且很少戴安全帽」、「對藥物可能產生副作用的認識不夠」、「對社會環境的參與不夠」、「考試時臨時抱佛腳」、「壓抑情緒而有問題時卻不願尋求專家協助」、「女生未能經常做自我乳房硬塊檢查」；屬生理方面主要的是：「女生體重過重」、「約八分之一的學生是B型肝炎帶原者」。
二、國立臺灣師範大學一年級學生生活狀況屬中上程度，且家庭社經地位愈高的學生，健康生活狀況愈佳。學生的「實際與健康年齡差」平均為-5.65歲，也就是說健康狀況較實際年齡老。「實際與健康年齡差」與「性別」、「籍貫」、「家庭社經地位」有關，其中女生或外省籍或高社經地位的學生都顯著的較其他水準的學生來得年輕。
三、本研究以「健康生活狀況」與「實際與健康年齡差」為實驗介入的重要效標，以第一次評估的結果作為共變量，將第二次評估結果進行多變項共變數分析發現，不同的研究組別在「健康生活狀況」與「實際與健康年齡差」兩方面都有顯著的差異。再經薛費氏事後考驗結果，不管是在「健康生活狀況」或「實際與健康年齡差」都是「健康危險評估衛生教育組（實驗II組）」顯著的較「一般衛生教育組（實驗I組）」與「對照組」得分高或年輕。可見應用「健康危險評估」來從事衛生教育工作，對改善大專院校學生健康危險因子，增進其身心健康之效果是可以肯定的。

The Main purpose of the study was to explore the distribution of health risk behaviors of the freshmen at the National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU) as well as its related factors and to evaluate the effect of applying “Health Risk Appraisal (HRA)”to implement health education programs. The results of the study will be utilized to improve students' health.
In November, 1996, 300 freshmen at the NTNU were selected as the subjects by using systematic sampling method and the pretest-postttest experimental design was conducted. Based on the subjects' department, the sample was raandomly assigned to three groups: Experiment Group I, Experiment Group Ⅱ, and Control Group. The subjects in Group I were provided with general health education activities, Group Ⅱtreated by Health Risk Appraisal integrated with health education activities, and Control Group with no health education activities. The results of the study were compared among the three groups.
The main findings of the study are as the following:
1. In terms of health risk behaviors, among the subjects, some:
(1) had no enough exercise and lack of the knowledge to avoid sports injuries.
(2) had no balanced diet.
(3) did not care their blood pressure.
(4) were likely to have meals at the food stands.
(5) had no appropriate knowledge and skills of first aid.
(6) had no good oral health habits.
(7) were likely to stay late up to early morning or got insufficient sleep.
(8) were likely to ride motorcycles speedy and seldem to wear helmet.
(9) had no enough knowledge regarding the side effects caused by medicines.
(10)had no motivation to participate in social activities.
(11)were likely to prepare for examinations at the last minute.
(12)depressed with stress and did not like to ask for assistance when they are in trouble.
(13) female students did not like to do breast self-examination for lumps.
(14) female students were over-weight.
(15) around one eighth of the sample were the carriers of hepatitis B.
2. The health life condition of the subjects was in medium and upper levels. The higher one's social-economic status was, the better one's health life condition. The average of the difference between actual and health age was-5.65 years which means that the health condition was older than the actual age. It was found that the difference between actual and health age was related to the subjects' gender, place of birth, and social-economic status. The subjects who are females, or born in other province, or with higher social-economic status were obviously younger than their counterparts.
3.The “health life condition”and“the difference between actual and health age” were used as the main criterion in the study. The result of the first appraisal was treated as covariate, then it was found that each group had significant difference between “health life condition”and“the difference between actual and health age” respectively at the same time when the result of the second appraisal was analyzed by using multicarrate analysis of covariance. By applying Scheffes' method to do posteriori comparison, it was found that the subjects in Group II got higher scores or younger in age than their counterparts in Group I and Control Group. Based on the results it is safe to say that using Health Risk Appraisal to conduct health education activities was effective in preventing the subjects' health risk behaviors and in promoting their health status.