Exploratory study evaluates knowledge and practice related to cardiovascular disease in desk workers, indicating potential workplace risks.
Objectives: With the objective to determine awareness, behaviors, and hazards associated with the job, this study set out to create and deliver a Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice (KAP) questionnaire on cardiovascular disease (CVD) to desk workers. Methods: Desk staff at SJS Hospital in Kopargaon, Ahmednagar participated in an exploratory study with informed consent and prior hospital administration permission. Four areas were covered via a validated, user-friendly hard copy questionnaire: knowledge (6 multiple-choice questions), attitude (7 yes/no questions), practice (health screening, physical activity, professional advice), and risk factors related to the workplace (sedentary work). Five professionals reviewed the tool. Questionnaire responses were gathered and examined. Results: Participants included 150 desk workers (mean age 32.5 ± 8.4 years; 27.3% female, 72.2% male). The majority showed good practices (76%) and moderate awareness of work dangers (64%), but the majority also showed excellent knowledge (77.7%) and favorable attitudes (60%). The mean domain scores showed lower practice (3.36 ± 0.85) and risk perception (4.19 ± 1.53) but higher knowledge (5.17 ± 0.83) and attitude (5.71 ± 1.03). According to correlation analysis, knowledge was inversely correlated with occupational risk but not significantly correlated with attitude or practice. The strongest positive connection between total score and occupational risk was found. Conclusion: Desk workers demonstrated intermediate occupational risk awareness and actions, but strong knowledge and attitudes toward CVD. This discrepancy between behavior and knowledge emphasizes the necessity of focused initiatives to encourage healthier lives and lower the risks of CVD associated with the employment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nagalapur et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: