Key result
Higher education, higher socioeconomic status, and nonsmoking status are linked to better cardiovascular knowledge.
Cross-Sectional (n=1,000)
OBJECTIVE: To assess the level of the current knowledge and understanding of cardiovascular disease (CVD) among Jordan's general public, their behaviour towards CVD and the factors associated with different CVD knowledge levels. METHODS: The data in the present study were collected using an interview-administered questionnaire. One thousand members of the general public were interviewed face to face. CVD knowledge was computed as a continuous variable. KEY FINDINGS: The present study reports limited public knowledge and awareness of CVD. Participants were more likely to have better CVD knowledge scores if they were non-smokers, always or often paid attention to their diet, reported having an 'about right' weight, occupied a very high socioeconomic level, held a university degree and had positive family history of CVD. Participants indicated that the community pharmacists had to play a role in helping patients manage their prescribed medicines; however, they did not recognise the community pharmacists' role in other areas of CVD prevention and management. CONCLUSION: The present study reports that the general public in Jordan has limited knowledge and awareness of CVD. In planning to positively impact CVD prevention and management, community pharmacists must develop and promote effective and accessible services.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mukattash et al. (2012) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardiovascular disease knowledge and awareness (n=1,000). Sociodemographic and lifestyle factors (e.g., smoking status, diet, socioeconomic level, education) was evaluated on Cardiovascular disease knowledge score. The general public in Jordan demonstrated limited cardiovascular disease knowledge, with better knowledge scores associated with being non-smokers, higher education, and higher socioeconomic status.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: