Key result
Academic staff linked to ~54% higher obesity rates versus non-academic staff in Nigeria.
Why the study?
Cardiovascular disease remains the leading global cause of mortality, yet routine risk assessment is not standard practice in many institutions, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.
Cross-Sectional (n=372)
Yes
Absolute Event Rate: 11.8% vs 18.2%
p-value: p=0.022
There is a high prevalence of modifiable cardiovascular disease risk factors, particularly obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, among university staff in South-South Nigeria, highlighting the need for targeted workplace wellness interventions.
CVD risk factor prevalence high among Nigerian university staff; leaves open need for targeted screening pending prospective validation.
Objectives: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of mortality worldwide, yet routine risk assessment is not standard practice in many institutions, especially in low- and middle-income countries. This study aimed to assess the prevalence and determinants of CVD risk factors among staff of Federal Universities in Nigeria’s South-South geopolitical zone. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional, comparative, and analytical study was conducted among 372 academic and non-academic staff members from two universities selected through stratified random sampling. Data collection involved a semi-structured questionnaire administered through the KoboCollect app, alongside physical and biochemical assessments. Anthropometric measurements were obtained using standard procedures. Height was measured to the nearest 0.1 cm with a stadiometer, and weight to the nearest 0.1 kg using a calibrated digital scale, with participants barefoot and in light clothing. Body mass index was calculated as weight (kg) divided by height squared (m 2 ). Blood glucose and lipid profile (total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C], very-LDL-C, triglycerides) were analyzed using the Point of Care Accu-Chek Active and CardioChek Professional Analyzer. Data was cleaned in Microsoft Excel 2013 and analyzed using international business machines the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 23.0. Results: The mean age of participants was 51.20 ± 6.97 years. Obesity (15.1%) was the most prevalent CVD risk factor, followed by diabetes mellitus (7.5%), hypertension (4.6%), and elevated LDL-C (3.8%). Non-academic staff exhibited significantly higher rates of diabetes mellitus (χ 2 = 6.165, P = 0.046) and hypertension (χ 2 = 8.029, P = 0.018) compared to academic staff, while academic staff had a significantly higher prevalence of obesity (χ 2 = 7.365, P = 0.022). Although LDL-C was also higher among academic staff (4.8%) than non- academic staff members (2.7%), the difference was not statistically significant ( P = 0.276). Notably, 37.9% of respondents, particularly non-academic staff, demonstrated poor knowledge of CVD risk factors. Undesirable lifestyle behaviors such as smoking and excessive alcohol use (x̄ ≥ 4 bottles/month) were significantly associated with non-academic staff ( p <0.001). Conclusion: The major CVD risk factors identified are obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Physical inactivity, lack of awareness, smoking, and alcohol use are the identified modifiable life behaviors. This study highlights the need for institutional-level interventions, including regular screening and targeted health education. Strengthening awareness and early detection programs within Nigerian universities is essential to reducing the long-term burden of CVD and promoting a healthier workforce.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ekpenyong et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardiovascular disease risk factors (n=372). Non-academic staff role vs. Academic staff role was evaluated on Obesity (p=0.022). Among university staff in South-South Nigeria, obesity was the most prevalent cardiovascular risk factor (15.1%), with academic staff having significantly higher obesity rates than non-academic staff (18.2% vs 11.8%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: