Factors affecting quality of life and learning-life balance of university students in business higher education

The study investigates the quality of life and learning-life balance among business higher education students, treating universities as complex ecosystems where student well-being affects individual success and institutional outcomes. With growing marketisation of higher education and students’ roles as co-creators of value, understanding factors that shape students’ quality of life and balance between study and personal life becomes important. Prior research has emphasized overall quality of life and quality of university life, with determinants including health, social relationships, academic overload, and mental health. However, business students have been less studied, despite unique concerns such as financial well-being, career orientation, and frequent employment during studies. Building on a university-wide initiative and prior staff-focused findings at Budapest Business University, this study aims to: (1) identify the main factors of business students’ quality of life and what influences them; (2) assess learning-life balance in business higher education and its determinants; and (3) determine which student characteristics help achieve learning-life balance and what influences these characteristics. The study pays particular attention to the role of family relationships.

Quality of life is defined by the WHO as individuals’ perceptions of their position in life relative to cultural context, goals, and expectations. Models for employees and students alike emphasize multiple dimensions: physical/material state, psychological/emotional well-being, education/self-improvement, social and family relationships, self-expression/leisure, and safety/environment (Akranavičiūtė & Ruževičius, 2007; Graves et al., 2021). In university contexts, both academic and non-academic factors matter, with many studies showing family and friend relationships are strongly linked to students’ perceived quality of life (Michalos & Orlando, 2006; Tempski et al., 2012; Schnettler et al., 2015; Luruli et al., 2020). COVID-19 lockdowns negatively affected mental health and subjective well-being, particularly among women, younger students, and those with poor family relationships, whereas partner/parental support and sociable personality buffered declines (Arenliu et al., 2021; Karuniawati et al., 2022; Müller et al., 2022; Sabatier et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022). Some studies associate living with family and daily physical activity with better physical and mental quality of life (Jamali et al., 2013; Pekmezovic et al., 2011). Regarding learning-life balance, students face workloads and risks of stress, insomnia, and burnout, with mixed gender patterns for burnout dimensions and links to academic performance and dropout (Freudenberger, 1974; Van Vendeloo et al., 2014; Paro et al., 2014; Bask & Salmela-Aro, 2013; Taylor et al., 2013; Kleiveland et al., 2015; Simães et al., 2023; Al-Mutori et al., 2020; Ocal et al., 2021). Risk and protection factors include gender, adverse childhood experiences, family socioeconomic status, optimism, and sense of belonging (Fiorilli et al., 2022; Davies et al., 2022; Luo et al., 2016; Shankland et al., 2019). Few studies focus specifically on business students, for whom financial well-being, career orientation, hardiness, and the physical university environment may be salient (Robak et al., 2007; Tho, 2019; Sohail & Shaikh, 2004; Garvey et al., 2021; Ogilvie & Homan, 2012; Lederer et al., 2015; Zheng, 2022). This literature informed the study’s hypotheses that (H1a) key quality-of-life factors among business students are physical, psychological, and family relations; (H1b) gender, grade, and family ties are key determinants; (H2a) learning-life balance is reduced during business higher education with elevated burnout risk; (H2b) gender, grade, and family ties determine learning-life balance; and (H3) these variables also determine the characteristics needed for balance.

Design and instrument: A cross-sectional online questionnaire survey was conducted at Budapest Business University (BBU) in 2021–2022. The instrument was based on Akranavičiūtė & Ruževičius’s (2007) quality-of-life model, separating family relations as a distinct domain. The questionnaire contained 18 items (mostly closed-ended; two open-ended), using nominal and 5-point Likert scales (1 = not at all; 5 = fully agree/very important). Three sections covered: (1) student specifications (gender, age, grade, presence of children, caregiving for relatives); (2) quality-of-life factors; (3) learning-life balance and characteristics needed to achieve it. A pilot test indicated no interpretive issues. Sampling and participants: The university had ~18,000 students. Using Yamane’s formula (1967) at 95% confidence (e = 0.05), minimum sample was 391. An e-questionnaire was sent to a randomly selected academic year on a compulsory course taken by students across BSc grades; completion rate was 58.29%. N = 1188 responses (mean age 22.74). Sample composition: 31.8% male, 68.2% female; grade: 17.8% first year, 27.6% second year, 50.0% third year, 2.5% fourth year, 2.1% fifth year; 2.8% had children living with them. Procedures: Participation was voluntary and anonymous; ethics approval obtained (Budapest Business University No. 2023/01/1) and GDPR adhered to. Data collection occurred two weeks before the exam period. Data analysis: Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted using SPSS v28 and AMOS v28, including ANOVA, independent-samples t-tests, correlation analyses, logistic regression, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). CFA model fit indices were evaluated using conventional thresholds (Latif, 2023).

Quality-of-life priorities (Table 3): On a 5-point scale, highest priorities were physical state (mean 4.83, SD 0.431), psychological state (4.70, 0.597), and family relations (4.66, 0.640). Others: self-expression/leisure (4.58, 0.603), friendships (4.49, 0.703), safety/environment (4.16, 0.686), material state (4.14, 0.747), education/self-improvement (4.09, 0.745). Correlations: Physical state correlated positively with self-expression/leisure (r = 0.350, p < 0.001), psychological state (r = 0.427, p < 0.001), and family relations (r = 0.307, p < 0.001). Psychological state correlated with self-expression/leisure (r = 0.338, p < 0.001). Family relations correlated with friendships (r = 0.332, p < 0.001). Determinants of quality-of-life priorities (Table 4): Gender differences: women rated physical (t = -3.896, p = 0.001), psychological (t = -5.839, p = 0.001), and family relations (t = -4.872, p = 0.001) as more important than men. Grade: education/self-improvement differed by grade (F = 3.537, p = 0.029), most important for fifth-year students. Family ties: physical state (t = -1.094, p = 0.020) and family relations (t = -2.275, p = 0.000) more important for students with families; self-expression/leisure (t = 2.514, p = 0.017) more important for students without families. Learning-life balance perceptions (Table 5): Means (SD): overwork increases stress/burnout risk 3.82 (1.088); opportunities for informal learning help balance 3.71 (0.973); rising expectations reduce personal life 3.42 (1.032); difficult to care for family while studying 2.85 (1.193); no opportunity for hobbies 2.73 (1.211). Correlations: rising expectations increased burnout risk (r = 0.613); more school commitments associated with less attention to family (r = 0.530) and less self-expression/leisure (r = 0.538). Grade differences: Fifth-years most strongly felt expectations come at expense of family life (mean 3.68; ANOVA F = 3.201, p < 0.05). First-years (mean 3.00) and fourth-years (mean 3.21) reported more difficulty focusing on family (F = 2.403, p = 0.048). Burnout feelings highest among fourth-years (mean 3.90), also high for third-years (mean 3.82). Logistic regression: Freshmen were less likely than upperclassmen to be able to take time from family relations to study (B: 126, S.E.: 0.064, Wald: 3.905, p = 0.048, Exp(B) = 0.881). Gender and family ties in balance perceptions: No significant gender differences across Table 5 statements. Family ties showed significant differences except: difficulty paying attention to family (t = -1.317, p = 0.188) and expectations at expense of family life (t = 1.532, p = 0.126) were not significantly different by family ties. Characteristics aiding learning-life balance (Table 6): Highest means: keep track of deadlines/expectations 4.48 (0.718); internal motivation 4.48 (0.711); problem-solving 4.46 (0.684); flexibility 4.45 (0.665). Lower means included empathy (3.85), understanding (3.81), light/cheerful (3.75). Factor structure (Table 7, CFA): Four factors—Emotional intelligence (α = 0.830, CR = 0.820, AVE = 0.547), Conscientiousness (α = 0.751, CR = 0.749, AVE = 0.653), Cooperation (α = 0.729, CR = 0.866, AVE = 0.683), Innovation (α = 0.694, CR = 0.691, AVE = 0.601). Fit indices: χ2 = 604.748 (df = 77, p < 0.001); RMSEA = 0.076; GFI = 0.938; AGFI = 0.904; CFI = 0.926; NFI = 0.917; TLI = 0.900; χ2/df = 7.854. Discriminant validity supported (HTMT). Determinants of factors: Only gender was associated with the four factors (Emotional intelligence t = -3.495, p < 0.001; Conscientiousness t = 7.097, p < 0.001; Cooperation t = -6.014, p < 0.001; Innovation t = -5.838, p < 0.001). Hypotheses: H1a and H1b accepted; H2a and H2b accepted except no gender effect for balance perceptions; H3 not supported (only gender related to factors, not grade or family ties).

Findings address the research questions by showing that business students prioritize physical and psychological health and family relations as key quality-of-life components, aligning with prior work that emphasizes health behaviors and family support. The salience of physical health likely reflects the COVID-19 context, underscoring universities’ roles in supporting healthy eating, physical activity, and safe environments. Psychological state was closely linked to perceived overload and burnout risk, particularly among higher-grade students, indicating a need for realistic performance expectations, mental health services, and social support to mitigate stress. Family relations emerged as both a priority and a buffer; students with families prioritized family and physical state more, and stronger family ties were associated with lower burnout. Learning-life balance perceptions varied by grade and family ties, suggesting that interventions should be tailored across the student lifecycle. The identification of four capability factors—emotional intelligence, conscientiousness, cooperation, and innovation—clarifies which student attributes facilitate balance; however, only gender consistently differentiated these attributes, not grade or family ties, partially contradicting expectations. Overall, the results highlight that gender, grade, and family ties shape quality-of-life priorities, while gender alone shapes perceived balancing attributes, informing targeted support strategies in business higher education.

The study shows that physical state, psychological state, and family relations are the top determinants of business students’ perceived quality of life, influenced by gender, grade, and family ties. Overwork and rising expectations increase stress and burnout risk; perceptions of workload, expectations, and balancing opportunities differ across grades, with senior students particularly perceiving trade-offs with personal life. Stronger family ties relate to lower burnout. Four attribute factors—emotional intelligence, conscientiousness, cooperation, and innovation—support learning-life balance; only gender significantly differentiates these perceived attributes. Future research should measure students’ actual physical and mental health status and their current assessments of other quality-of-life factors and improvement opportunities, and could extend to comparative studies across institutions and countries and longitudinal designs to track changes across academic progression.

The survey was conducted at a single institution (BBU) with randomization at course/year level; while the response rate was high and the sample large (N = 1188; ~3.2% margin of error at 95% confidence), generalizability beyond business students at BBU may be limited. The cross-sectional, self-reported design cannot establish causality and may be influenced by the contemporaneous COVID-19 context. The study did not directly measure students’ physical and mental health levels or detailed assessments of other quality-of-life domains and potential improvements, which are suggested for future research.