Key result
Hypertensive teachers report good quality of life in ~64% of cases during the COVID-19 emergency.
Why the study?
Quality of life in hypertensive regular basic education teachers influences their ability to minimize disease risks, but had not been determined during the COVID-19 health emergency in North Lima.
Cross-Sectional (n=131)
No
A cross-sectional study found that 64.1% of hypertensive teachers in North Lima maintained a good quality of life during the COVID-19 pandemic, while 26.7% had a poor quality of life.
Most hypertensive teachers maintained good QoL during COVID; hypothesis-generating and not yet generalizable beyond this narrow cohort.
The quality of life in hypertensive teachers of regular basic education is one of the priorities committed to health well-being, since it will depend on how the person can minimize the risks due to this disease, so the research objective is to determine the quality of life in hypertensive teachers of regular basic education who come to an establishment during the health emergency due to COVID-19 in North Lima. It is a quantitative, descriptive-transverse study, consisting of a population of 131 hypertensive teachers of regular basic education who answered a questionnaire on sociodemographic aspects and the questionnaire on quality of life in hypertension. In their results we can observe that 64,1 % (n=84) of hypertensive teachers of regular basic education have a good quality of life, 9,2 % (n=12) regular quality of life and 26,7 % (n=35) poor quality of life. In conclusion, strategies should be made to promote and prevent hypertension, and thus allow the population the necessary information about the disease and how to counteract it.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Asencios-Trujillo et al. (2023) conducted a cross-sectional in Hypertension (n=131). Among 131 hypertensive teachers during the COVID-19 emergency in North Lima, 64.1% reported a good quality of life, 9.2% a regular quality of life, and 26.7% a poor quality of life.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: