ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
Research Article
Revised

Assessment of non-communicable diseases screening practices among university lecturers in Ghana – a cross sectional single centre study

[version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]
PUBLISHED 24 Oct 2023
Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Global Public Health gateway.

Abstract

Background: Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality globally. In low-income settings, some NCDs are without symptoms so regular screening for early detection is key. However, routine screening for NCDs is limited in the general public and even among the elite. We therefore set out to assess health screening practices among lecturers in a university in Ghana.

Methods: This was a cross-sectional study involving 205 lecturers in Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology from February to August 2022. A questionnaire was used to gather data from both male and female university lecturers based on their self-reported declaration of being male or female. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics.

Results: We found that, 41 (20.0%) lecturers (both men and women) had never checked their blood pressure (BP), 140 (68.3%) check their BP twice a month and 24 (11.7%) do so more than 3 times a month. Overall, 105 (57.18%) lecturers have high BP (>120 mmHg, >80 mmHg). Among the lecturers with hypertension, 59 (50.9%) often checked their BP each month, whereas 22 (18.97%) did not. The study found that, 164 (80%) of the lecturers have never checked their blood sugar level since they assumed lectureship position. Among the lecturers who check their blood sugar, 78 (47.55) are not happy with their blood sugar levels. Lecturer’s age (40 to 49 years) was found to be associated with BP in the bivariate analysis (p=0.036), but not in the multivariate analysis (p=0.114). In the bivariate analyses, female lecturers were found to have a higher risk (OR 1.35; 95% CI 0.29-6.21) of developing hypertension compared to male lecturers.

Conclusions: The study has revealed that lecturers, just like the general population have moderate health care checks. The need to setup occupational health therapy units in all universities is overdue.

Keywords

Assessment, Screening Practices, Non-communicable Diseases, University Lecturers, Ghana

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Under the abstract, the background has been extensively reviewed by the Authors. The abstract is written in the past tense. The conclusion has been amended with some of the reviewers' suggestions. In the Introduction, insertions such as ‘with increasing numbers of students in universities, Lecturers are stressed and this has an immense effect on their modifiable lifestyles such as physical inactivity and poor dietary behaviour’ have been made. The 3rd paragraph has been moved to 2nd paragraph as suggested by the Reviewers. On the issue of why the Authors included ’The study, therefore, captured the sex of lecturers who self-reported they were males or females. Therefore we did not inquire into the socially constructed roles, behaviors, expressions and identities of individual participants. The implication is that no external or internal examination of body characteristics genetic testing, or other means were conducted on study participants’’, the authors respond that these were part of the editorial review  requirements.  The authors could have dealt with all the 270 study participants but the consumables were inadequate. We have no other reasons for working with the 205 instead of the 270 participants. Again, the weight, height and blood pressure were checked 3 times to ensure accuracy. All lecturers who were implicated in the BMI and blood pressure measurements were advised to visit the university hospital for further checks and treatment. Again, lecturers with poor dietary behaviour were also advised to visit a dietician at the university hospital. The use of elevated BP instead of hypertension has been effected throughout the document.  Moreover, sociodemographic variables influence the occurrence of NCDs. So assessing the association among sociodemographic variables and as a reference to health checks (BP) is important. Lastly, all grammatical suggestions by reviewers have been incorporated into the final paper.

To read any peer review reports and author responses for this article, follow the "read" links in the Open Peer Review table.

Introduction

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality globally (Pan American Health Organization, 2021; Ouyang et al., 2022; Brenyah et al., 2023a). Some symptoms of NCDs do not manifest early or are not noticed. It is well known that high proportions of men and women are living with NCDs such as diabetes and hypertension while ignoring that they have the disease (Boutayeb & Maamri, 2023). Again, 50% of people living with diabetes have missed healthcare appointments due to stigma fear. Therefore regular screening for early detection of NCDs such as hypertension and diabetes is key to reducing its burden (Budreviciute et al., 2020; National Health Mission, undated). Early detection with appropriate management especially in high-risk individuals may be cost-effective (Ghana Ministry of Health, 2012).

By lowering common risk factors like tobacco use, hazardous alcohol use, physical inactivity and eating healthily, many NCDs can be avoided (Ghana Ministry of Health, 2012; Pan American Health Organization, 2021). Globally NCDs account for 41 million annual deaths or 71% of all fatalities (Pan American Health Organization & WHO, 2022). The prevalence of NCDs is on the rise in low-and middle-income countries (Ndubuisi, 2021; WHO, 2022). Preventive strategies are required, and immediate action must be taken to reduce risk factors for NCD development. NCDs not only result in death but also economic damage to a nation. This is a result of high dependency rates, poor work productivity, and restricted access to production resources, all of which contribute to poverty and low economic growth (Ummi et al., 2021).

General health checks are a standard part of medical care. It includes several tests in a healthy individual to detect illness early, prevent illness from occurring, or give assurance of the absence of illness (Scottish Government Report, 2008; Watt et al., 2011; Krogsboll et al., 2012). It is therefore important that individuals have general health checks every year to aid in the identification of and early management of some possible diseases. However, according to Krogsboll et al. (2012), and Ummi et al. (2021), some people believe these health checks do more harm than good. This is due to the diagnosis of new and unexpected diseases which causes fear in individuals, as well as the rush to treat these conditions that may result in unnecessary regimens that could further harm the body. Either way, general health checks are very vital in the early detection of non-communicable diseases.

As part of the modern approaches to healthcare in identifying and managing NCDs, anticipatory care including general and preventative health screenings has formed a fundamental component. For health to improve and health inequities to be avoided, it is crucial to guarantee a high and equitable uptake of general health check-ups (Watt et al., 2011; Dryden et al., 2012). Lecturers and teaching staff are among the body of professionals who need to undertake regular health checks due to heavy workloads in recent times. Also with the increasing number of students in universities, Lecturers are stressed and this has an immense effect on their modifiable lifestyles such as physical inactivity and poor dietary behaviour. However, empirical data on health check practices among lecturers and teaching staff is lacking. We therefore set out to evaluate the health screening practices among lecturers at tertiary institutions in Ghana, using Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology as a test case.

Many professions are characterized by huge workloads, stress, bad eating habits, and considerably long periods of sitting (Sharma & Majumdar, 2009; Dixon et al. 2014; Gareth et al., 2022). These are all modifiable risk factors for NCDs. Lecturers are a vital group of society who contribute immensely to the educational system. However, to be a lecturer means to carry upon oneself a great responsibility encompassing teaching, mentorship, research, community services and leadership roles. University lecturing is implicated in unhealthy modifiable behavior and as such lecturers may be predisposed to risk factors of non-communicable diseases. Available reports on the rise in mortality caused by non-communicable diseases pose a great concern (Ummi et al., 2021; Pan American Health Organization, 2021; WHO, 2022) and needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

Studies have reported that, over the years, there have been several community and professional-based studies conducted to assess screening practices (Maindal et al., 2014; Alzahrani et al., 2021; AL-Kahil et al., 2020). Our search in the literature did not reveal the conduct of any study on health check practices among Lecturers or teaching staff. As a result, not much is known about the health check practices of lecturers in Ghana. This study therefore aimed at assessing health check practices among lecturers in the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology in Ghana. It is hoped that the outcome of this study will inform policy on healthcare issues not only among lecturers but also among other professions in general.

Methods

This section highlights the various methods used for this study. It covers study setting, study design, study approach, study population, sampling techniques, sample size calculation, inclusion and exclusion criteria, ethical consideration, data collection, data management and data analysis.

Study setting

The study was carried out at Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Kumasi between February to August, 2022. The study covered all the six (6) Colleges in the University.

Study design

This was a cross sectional study to ascertain health check practices among university lecturers. The study therefore captured the sex of lecturers who self-reported they were males or females. Therefore we did not inquire into the socially constructed roles, behaviors, expressions and identities of individual participants. The implication is that, no external or internal examination of body characteristics, genetic testing, or other means were conducted on study participants.

Study approach

The study employed a quantitative approach in which data was collected using questionnaires with both closed- and open-ended questions.

Study population

The study population involved 838 Lecturers across the six Colleges at Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Kumasi. A study of the lecturer population per college revealed that Colleges of Health Sciences (highest) and Agricultural/Natural resources (lowest) were the outliers (Quality Assurance and Planning Office, 2020).

Sampling technique

A simple probability technique was used to select the name of a college and the day/date to visit. Two sets of papers were folded with the names of colleges (set 1) and the day/date of the visit (set 2). A picker picked one folded piece of paper from each set and the name of the college and the day/date to visit were matched. In this case, the ordering of date and visit gave 1st, College of Humanities & Social Sciences (COHSS), 2nd College of Agriculture and Natural Resources (CANR), 3rd College of Art & Built Environment (CABE), 4th College of Engineering (COE), 5th College of Science (COS) and 6th College of Health Sciences (COHS). We then used the ‘walk-in’ system to select the study participants. By ‘walk-in’, the date and time of the visit to the Colleges were not announced to avoid possible biases in terms of lecturer-modifiable lifestyle behaviours. Within the days of visiting a college, any lecturer we met in his/her office was a potential study participant. All lecturers who consented to participate in the study were assessed instantly in their offices face-to-face (see details under data collection procedure and tools).

Sample size calculation

The sample size was obtained using Yamane’s (1967) formulae as shown below:

n=N1+Ne2

Where:

*n = is the population of Lecturers in at KNUST

*e = is the level of precision

Therefore:

n=8381+8380.0025
n=8381+2.098
n=8383.095

n = 270 participants.

However, due to logistical constraints, 205 participants were contacted across the 6 Colleges at Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology. The logistical constraints centred on consumables for the biochemical parameters and anthropometric measurements assessment; gloves, sanitizers, methylated spirits, glucometer strips, cotton wool, batteries (BP apparatus, weighing scales, glucometer gadgets) and others. We then applied simple proportions to get the number of lecturers to be consulted in each College.

Inclusion and exclusions criteria

Inclusion criteria were made up of all Lecturers on the KNUST campus who are in active service and consented to participate. All other staff not within this category were excluded from this research.

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval was sought from the CHRPE, KNUST with approval reference no: CHRPE/AP/581/21 granted on 8th December, 2021. The aim of the research was explained to the participants. Those who consented to participate in the research were given consent forms to sign and date. Again, participants were assured of confidentiality. Participants were told that they were free to withdraw from the study with time. In other words, study participants were not coerced into the study.

Data collection procedures and tool

Data was collected using standardized structured questionnaires formulated for the current study based on the guidelines of Boynton and Greenhalgh (2004). The questionnaires were pretested at Akenteng Appiah-Menka University of Skills Training and Entrepreneurial Development in Kumasi, Ghana. Questions found to be uncomfortable to respondents or biased were amended and incorporated into the final set of questionnaires (see Extended data, Brenyah et al., 2023b). The questionnaires covered the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents, dietary intake, alcohol intake, issues with physical inactivity and tobacco use. Aside from these four main risk factors of NCDs, the questionnaire also captured the frequency of blood pressure checks, blood pressure outcome anytime it is checked (systolic and diastolic), frequency of general body check-ups, frequency of anthropometric measurement checks (weight and height), an assessment of impressions about the outcome of weight and height checks, an assessment of intended measures to be taken depending on the outcomes of weight and health checked. The weight, height and blood pressure were checked 3 times to ensure accuracy. Lecturers were also asked to identify if the content of their jobs has negative effects on their health status. With the assistance of two (2) State Registered Nurses, the research team and research assistants, lecturers were assessed on blood sugar status using glucometers, blood pressure using a digital sphygmomanometer, and weight and height using a weighing scale and stadiometer. Questionnaires were administered using Google Forms and submitted before the research team left the lecturer’s office. All these assessments were done in the offices of the lecturers. Instant results of blood sugar status, body mass index and blood pressure were released and interpreted for the respondents. All lecturers who were implicated in the BMI and blood pressure measurements were advised to visit the university hospital for further checks and treatment. Again, lecturers with poor dietary behaviour were also advised to visit a dietician at the university hospital.

Data management

Only the Research Team had access to data. Data was kept confidential. The researchers had planned of disposing data from the storage 5 years after the publication of this research. Collected data was entered and cleaned using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, and then imported into STATA version 14.0 (Stata Corp LP, College Station, Texas, USA) for statistical analysis and results presentation.

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the characteristics of the study population by employing frequencies and percentages for categorical data. In addition, the association between categorical variables were assessed using Chi-square (χ2) or Fisher’s exact tests where appropriate with a p ≤ 0.05 assumed to be statistically significant. Both bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed and adjusted for colleges’ effect to identify associations among the variables of interest. Variables having significant association in the logistic regression models were set at p ≤ 0.05 with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for both odd and adjusted odds ratios (OR, AOR).

Variables

Blood pressure (BP) was selected as the dependent variable, and in turn defined as Normal: ≤ 120/80 mmHg; Elevated: Systolic between 120-129 and diastolic ≤ 80 mmHg; Hypertensive: Systolic ≥ 130 or diastolic ≥ 80 mmHg. Then dichotomized into Normal blood pressure: ≤ 120/80 mmHg and high blood pressure (Hypertension): ≥ 130/90 mmHg for logistic regression analyses. Independent variables were socio-demographic characteristics; sex status (male/female), age, marital status, staff rank and lecturer’s colleges (categorized into binary variables; COHS/COS/COE and CABE/CANR/COHSS), family history of NCDs and health check status. In this study, the variable “very often” denotes (doing the activity in question more than 4 times a month), “often” denotes (doing the activity in question at least twice a month), and “not often” denotes (doing the activity in question once a month).

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics of university lecturers

The study involved 205 participants including 176 (85.9%) men and 29 (14.15%) women based on their self-declaration of identity (Brenyah et al., 2023b). The mean age of participants was 46.3 ± 9.4 SD years with 39.02% aged 50 years and above as shown together with other variables in Table 1. The only disaggregated variables relating to sex (male and female) were the number and sex identity of study participants per their reported responses and the male/female risk ratio of developing hypertension.

Table 1. Socio-demographic factors of study participants.

FactorsFreq. (n = 205)Percent (%)
Sex
 Male17685.85
 Female2914.15
Age groups (years)
 <405627.32
 40–496933.66
 50+8039.02
Min, Max27, 73
Mean (SD)46.3 (9.4)
Marital status
 Married17384.39
 Separated52.44
 Divorced62.93
 Co-habitation10.49
 Not married209.76
Staff rank
 Full Professor52.44
 Associate Professor3115.12
 Senior Lecturer7637.07
 Lecturer7536.59
 Assistant Lecturer188.78
College
 Health Sciences3818.54
 Art and Built Environment3416.59
 Engineering3416.59
 College of Science3316.1
 Agriculture and Natural Resources3316.1
 Humanities and Social Sciences3316.1

Family history of non-communicable diseases among university lecturers

Participants with a self-reported NCD were 28.2%. The highest prevalence of the NCDs indicated was hypertension (66.8%) among the lecturers. Additionally, 50.1% of the Lecturers reported a family history of NCD, with hypertension accounting for 70.7% as shown on Table 2.

Table 2. Distribution of family history of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) among KNUST lecturers.

FactorsFrequency (%)
Ever informed by a doctor or noticed that you have any NCD?
Yes58 (28.2)
No143(69.8)
Can't tell4 (1.9)
If yes, Specify the NCDs
Hypertension38 (66.8)
Diabetes11(19.5)
Cancers4 (7.3)
Asthma3 (5.3)
Heart Failure2 (0.97)
Heard or noticed any of your family members had NCD?*
Yes109 (50.1)
No78 (38)
Can't tell18 (8.7)
If yes, Specify the NCDs
Hypertension77 (70.7)
Diabetes20 (19)
Stroke6 (5.4)
Cancers2 (1.4)
Asthma4(2.9)

* Data is presented in absolute and percentage terms.

Distribution of health checks status by blood pressure among university lecturers

Table 3 shows that among the lecturers with hypertension, 59 (50.86%) often check their BP each month, whereas 22 (18.97%) reported not doing so often. Thus, there is a statistical association (p = 0.049) between the frequency of monthly BP checks and blood pressure. However, no associations were found between BP and the nature of BP results (p = 0.475), frequency of medical check-ups (p = 0.737) or BMI (p = 0.094).

Table 3. Distribution of health checks status by blood pressure among KNUST Lecturers.

FactorsBP
NormalElevated BPP-value
Aside from this study, how often do you check your BP in a month*0.049
Not Often3 (16.67)22 (18.97)
Often14 (77.78)59 (50.86)
Very Often1 (5.56)35 (30.17)
How often do you go for medical check-ups*0.737
Not at all2 (15.38)34 (28.81)
Not Often3 (23.08)22 (18.64)
Often7 (53.85)48 (40.68)
Very Often1 (7.69)14 (11.86)
Nature of BP results anytime check*0.475
Normal (120 mmHg or less, 80 mmHg)10 (55.56)78 (42.62)
High (120–129 mmHg, 80 mmHg)6 (33.33)88 (48.09)
Very high (>130 mmHg, >90 mmHg)2 (11.11)17 (9.29)
Do you think your job influences your BP?*0.225
Yes4 (36.36)21 (18.1)
Can't tell7 (63.64)95 (81.9)
How often do you check your weight*0.123
Never checked2 (11.11)11 (5.95)
Check daily1 (5.56)4 (2.16)
Check weekly2 (11.11)11 (5.95)
Check monthly10 (55.56)85 (45.95)
Check yearly3 (16.67)74 (40.0)
Are you happy with your weight*0.712
Yes9 (50.0)77 (41.4)
No9 (50.0)106 (56.99)
Don't know my weight03 (1.61)
BMI0.094
Healthy weight (18.5<25 W/H2))6 (33.33)26 (13.9)
Over weight (25<30 W/H2))7 (38.89)97 (51.87)
Obese (> 30 W/H2))5 (27.78)64 (34.22)
What do you hope to do about your weight*0.632
Do nothing2 (11.11)34 (18.38)
Eat less3 (16.67)22 (11.89)
Exercise more13 (72.22)129 (69.73)

* Indicates presence of missing data; Statistical significance based on Chi-square or Fishes exact test where appropriate and set at p≤0.05.

Distribution of health checks status by blood sugar status among lecturers

The study found that 68.3% of lecturers undertake health checks by doing a blood sugar test twice a month. Again, 11.7% do the blood sugar test more than 3 times a month. Out of the 164 (80%) that took the test, 107 (65.3%) used the fasting blood sugar (FBS) and 57 (34.7%) used the Random Blood Sugar (RBS). Among those who took the test, 78 (47.5%) were not happy with their blood sugar status. The study found that, 61 (78.2%) claim their blood sugar status is mostly high (100 to 125 mg/dL (5.6 to 6.9 mmol/L) signifying prediabetes as shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Distribution of health check practices by blood sugar among lecturers.

FactorsFrequency (%)
How often do you check your blood sugar in a month?
Never checked41 (20.0)
Not often (2 times a month)140 (68.3)
Often (more than 3 times)24 (11.7)
If yes, Specify the type of blood sugar checked
Fasting blood Sugar107 (65.3)
Random blood sugar57 (34.7)
Are you happy about your sugar status?
Yes67 (40.9)
No78 (47.5)
Cannot tell19 (11.6)
Why are you not happy with the sugar status? Is it always high or low?
It is mostly high (5.6 to 6.9 mmol/L)61 (78.2)
It is mostly low (<5.6 mmol/L)17 ( 21.8)

Factors associated with BP among KNUST lecturers

Table 5 shows bivariate and multivariate analyses for BP on socio-demographic characteristics and health check status. Lecturers in the age bracket 40 to 49 years were found to be associated (p = 0.036) with BP in the bivariate analysis, but not in the multivariate analysis (p = 0.114). Additionally, in the bivariate analyses, female lecturers were found to have a higher risk (OR 1.35; 95% CI 0.29-6.21) of developing BP (hypertension) compared to male lecturers. Lecturers in the colleges; COHS/COS/COE were found to be significantly associated (p = 0.016) with BP and were four times more likely (OR: 4.11, 95% CI: 1.30-12.95) to develop BP than those in the CABE/CANR/COHSS. Furthermore, it was shown that the frequency of lecturers’ BP checks (with the category ‘Often’) was significantly associated (p = 0.045) with their BP status. Although there was no association between blood pressure and any of the factors in the multivariate model, the analysis also revealed that lecturers who rarely check their weight (check monthly/yearly) were 91% more likely (AOR: 1.91, 95% CI: 0.09-41.98) to have BP than those who frequently check. Moreover, those with higher BMI (obese) had increased odds of BP that were more than six folds (AOR: 6.89, 95% CI: 0.61-77.9) compared with those with healthy weight. However, there were greater uncertainties surrounding the estimates of these odds.

Table 5. Socio-demographic and health checks status factors associated with BP among lecturers; logistic regression model.

FactorsBivariate analysisMultivariate analysis
Unadjusted (OR)Adjusted (AOR)
OR (95% CI)P-valueOR (95% CI)P-value
Gender
MaleRefRef
Female1.35 (0.29-6.21)0.7000.39 (0.03-4.32)0.441
Age groups (years)
<40RefRef
40–490.11 (0.01-0.87)0.0360.81 (0.004-1.83)0.114
50+0.19 (0.02-1.59)0.1250.65 (0.03-15.09)0.788
Colleges
COHS/COS/COE4.11 (1.30-12.95)0.0162.05 (0.13-32.09)0.608
CABE/CANR/COHSSRefRef
Aside from this study, how often do you check your BP in a month
Not often0.21 (0.020-2.14)0.1880.41 (0.02-8.90)0.572
Often0.12 (0.02-0.96)0.0450.08 (0.01-1.02)0.052
Very oftenRefRef
How often do you go for general body check-up
Not at all2.19 (0.44-10.92)0.3370.49 (0.03-8.04)0.624
Not often0.95 (0.23-3.89)0.9390.92 (0.07-11.35)0.948
Often to very oftenRefRef
Do you think your job has influence on your BP?
Yes0.39 (0.10-1.44)0.1570.82 (0.13-5.33)0.837
Cannot tellRefRef
How often do you check your weight?
Check daily/weeklyRefRef
Never checked1.10 (0.16-7.74)0.9240.25 (0.01-11.03)0.473
Check monthly/yearly2.45 (0.63-9.55)0.1981.91 (0.09-41.98)0.680
BMI
Healthy weightRefRef
Over weight3.20 (0.99-10.34)0.0522.73 (0.32-23.23)0.359
Obese2.95 (0.82-10.53)0.0956.89 (0.61-77.9)0.120

Factors associated with BP among lecturers adjusting for colleges’ effect

The study also assessed if the variables assume different statistically significant associations if the logistics regression analyses were adjusted for effects from the colleges. It was noticed in Table 6 that strong statistical significance was found between BP checks and age (“40-49” p < 0.001, “50+” p = 0.05) and also with BMI (“overweight” p < 0.001, “obese” p < 0.001) in the bivariate analysis. The multivariate analysis showed several statistical associations were found between BP and its predicting factors including age: 40–49 (p < 0.001), the frequency of lecturers’ BP checks (with the categories “not often” p < 0.001, “Often” p < 0.001), job influence on lecturers BP (p = 0.037), the frequency of weight checks (with the category “never checked” p < 0.001) and BMI (“obese” p < 0.001) as shown on Table 6.

Table 6. Socio-demographic and health checks status factors associated with BP among Lecturers adjusting for colleges’ effect-logistic regression model.

FactorsBivariate analysisMultivariate analysis
UnadjustedAdjusted by colleges
OR (95% CI)P-valueOR (95% CI)P-value
Gender
MaleRefRef
Female1.35 (0.93-1.96)0.1140.49 (0.0.25-9.56)0.635
Age groups (years)
<40RefRef
40–490.11 (0.04-0.32)<0.0010.08 (0.05-0.13)<0.001
50+0.19 (0.36-1.00)0.0500.69 (0.14-3.53)0.659
Aside from this study, how often do you check your BP in a month
Not often0.57 (0.25-1.32)0.1900.36 (0.22-0.58)<0.001
Seldom4.77 (0.95-23.97)0.0580.08 (0.14-3.53)<0.001
Very oftenRefRef
How often do you go for general body check-up
Not at all2.19 (0.36-13.39)0.3950.54 (0.25-1.15)0.109
Not Often0.95 (0.55-1.64)0.8440.85 (0.61-1.17)0.320
Often to very oftenRefRef
Do you think your job has influence on your BP?
Yes0.39 (0.08-1.81)0.2280.72 (0.53-0.98)0.037
Can't tellRefRef
How often do you check your weight?
Check daily/weeklyRefRef
Never checked1.10 (0.95-1.27)0.1900.26 (0.24-0.31)<0.001
Check monthly/yearly2.45 (0.57-10.56)0.3292.0 (0.71-5.58)0.188
BMI
Healthy weightRefRef
Overweight3.20 (2.15-4.75)<0.0012.76 (0.76-10.04)0.123
Obese2.95 (2.37-3.68)<0.0016.62 (3.32-13.19)<0.001

Discussion

The study reported on socio-demographic characteristics (sex) by only disaggregating the self-identify of respondents based on their self-declaration into male and female. These two categories of respondents (males and females) lecturing at the universities are classified as university lecturers in this research.

The study revealed a high prevalence of NCDs among university lecturers. Elevated blood pressure was revealed to be the most prevalent NCD (66.8%) among Lecturers. Similarly, WHO has reported that cardiovascular diseases are the most prevalent NCD that accounts for most deaths (World Helath Organization, 2022). Individuals, irrespective of their sex (male or female) with a family history of chronic NCDs are at risk of developing similar conditions later in their lives (Downing et al., 2020; Alemi et al., 2021). This risk factor could add up to the presence of chronic conditions observed among lecturers.

Research outcomes have also linked occupational stress as a possible cause of elevated blood pressure (Djindjic et al., 2012; Rosenthal & Alter, 2012; Owolabi et al., 2012). The current study revealed that lecturers in the age bracket of 40 to 49 years are more predisposed to developing elevated blood pressure than the other age groups. The European University Institute (2018) published that most lecturers obtain a PhD by age 37 and very few of them become full professors before the age of 40. This means that extra work is done in the academic pursuit of becoming a professor after the age of 40. Fulfilling occupational duties and academic responsibilities compounds the stress that predisposes lecturers to develop high blood pressure. This situation makes frequent health checks by lecturers very important.

Our study found that, female lecturers were more at risk of developing hypertension than male lecturers. This finding is inconsistent with other studies (Doumas et al., 2013; Everett & Zajacova, 2015; Kalibal et al., 2020; Alemi et al., 2021), that have suggested that hypertension is less likely to occur in women than in men. This inconsistency may be a result of the age groups because prior studies focused on the youth, unlike this current study which focused on older adults. Also, the healthy lifestyle of the female lecturers in this study could be a possible reason, however, it is not absolute. Further studies are needed to explore if the risk of developing hypertension in female lecturers increases as a result of the profession.

However, our study outcome is consistent with the study outcome of Alemi et al. (2021), who report that female teachers had a higher prevalence of increased serum low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and overweight/obesity than male teachers.

The level of awareness of a chronic disease is important in its management. The study revealed that lecturers who had regular medical assessments and checked their blood pressure regularly stood a better chance of identifying hypertension and related conditions such as diabetes and managing them. This finding is consistent with studies conducted by Everett and Zajacova (2015) who found out that participants who were aware of their chronic conditions were better managers of the disease than those who were unaware.

We also found that, among the lecturers with normal BP and those with hypertensive conditions, those who mentioned that they checked their BP often were high accounting for 53.85% and 40.68%, respectively. The implication is that many lecturers are aware of the need for frequent BP monitoring. While those with normal BP are monitoring the possibility of onset of hypertension and other related conditions, those with hypertensive conditions are monitoring the control of their BP.

In addition, we realized that the BMI was biased towards lectures with elevated blood pressure condition. It was found among them that, 51.87% and 43.22% were overweight and obese, respectively. This result is consistent with other studies that have reported that, overweight and obesity are associated with elevated blood pressure and diabetes (Jiang et al., 2016; Aronow, 2017). The outcomes of the health check variables translate to various activities as an effort to control it. For instance, according to our study, the lecturers with hypertension exercised more because they were not happy about their weight, unlike those with normal blood pressure who exercised less frequently.

Moreover, our study found that only a few lecturers in the normal BP category and those in the hypertensive condition category check their BP daily accounting for 11.11% and 5.95%, respectively. However, it was noticed that a majority of the lecturers in the above categories checked their BP monthly accounting for 55.56% and 45.95% respectively. Under normal circumstances, people with hypertensive conditions should check their BP frequently. However, our study found a contrary practice where lecturers with hypertensive conditions were the least in checking their BP in both daily and monthly regimens accounting for 5.95% and 45.95%, respectively. The implication is that BP check practices are poor among lecturers especially those with hypertensive conditions.

The study found that the majority (80 %) of lecturers undertake health checks by doing blood sugar tests more than twice a month. The majority of them (107, 65.3 %) do the fasting blood sugar (FBS) and 78 (47.5%) of them are not happy with their blood sugar status. Among those who are not happy with their blood sugar level, 61 (78.2%) have high blood sugar levels between 100 to 125 mg/dL (5.6 to 6.9 mmol/L)] which signifies prediabetes.

Awareness means an individual may adopt lifestyle activities that will reduce the risk of developing diabetes and hypertension such as healthy eating and exercising. The regular visits to the hospital for routine examination were found to be higher among lecturers who were hypertensive. The general public has been reported to underutilize general healthcare checkups (Krogsboll et al., 2012) and this study reiterates those findings. This indicates a poor health check among the lecturers because it indicates that they only go to the hospital when they are aware that they have an onset of a disease.

However, these health checks are reliable means, through which chronic conditions are detected earlier and managed for an improved quality of life. Hence, a need for university lecturers to make it a habit of visiting the hospital for health checks.

Limitations of the study

The study is limited in terms of scope. This relates to the fact that it was a single-centre study focusing on Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology. Again, the limitation in scope also relates to the sample size. It would have been appropriate to use at least half of the lecturers’ population in the university. Despite these limitations, the outcome of the study is relevant and may serve as a baseline study for future research in this area.

Conclusions

The study has revealed that university lecturers have poor health check habits. The need for the setup of occupational health check units in all universities is overdue. The health promotion units of universities and hospitals should also scale up their activities to encourage university lecturers to improve their health check practices. Lecturers already diagnosed with NCDs should be encouraged to modify their style practices such as exercising, and healthy dietary behaviour among others.

Direction for future research

Future research should focus on a wider sample size using not less than 5 universities in Ghana. This will give a true reflection of the status of non-communicable disease screening practices among university lecturers in Ghana. Again, future research should also focus on comparing NCD screening practices between public and private university lecturers in Ghana.

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2
VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 26 Jun 2023
Comment
Author details Author details
Competing interests
Grant information
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
F1000Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
- -
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
Brenyah JK, Kyei-Dompim J, Koranteng Tannor E et al. Assessment of non-communicable diseases screening practices among university lecturers in Ghana – a cross sectional single centre study [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] F1000Research 2023, 12:746 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.134627.2)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Version 2
VERSION 2
PUBLISHED 24 Oct 2023
Revised
Views
0
Cite
Reviewer Report 11 Dec 2023
Abdesslam Boutayeb, Laboratory of Stochastic and Deterministic Modelling, Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Sciences, University Mohamed Premier, Oujda, Morocco 
Approved
VIEWS 0
I am pleased to let you know that, according to my comments on the first version,  the authors Brenyah JK et al. have appropriately revised the manuscript "Assessment of non-communicable diseases screening practices among university lecturers in Ghana – a cross sectional ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Boutayeb A. Reviewer Report For: Assessment of non-communicable diseases screening practices among university lecturers in Ghana – a cross sectional single centre study [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2023, 12:746 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.157666.r217937)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Version 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 26 Jun 2023
Views
2
Cite
Reviewer Report 15 Sep 2023
Temitope Olumuyiwa Ojo, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria 
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 2
The authors have examined an important issue pertaining to the occupational health of staff at a university in Ghana. It is a study that may be relevant to other similar contexts. It is noteworthy that fairly recent literature were cited ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Ojo TO. Reviewer Report For: Assessment of non-communicable diseases screening practices among university lecturers in Ghana – a cross sectional single centre study [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2023, 12:746 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.147697.r191381)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Views
5
Cite
Reviewer Report 14 Jul 2023
Abdesslam Boutayeb, Laboratory of Stochastic and Deterministic Modelling, Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Sciences, University Mohamed Premier, Oujda, Morocco 
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 5
General assessment

The content of the present manuscript is clearly and accurately presented by the authors.

The work is well documented and current adapted literature is cited.

The study design is ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Boutayeb A. Reviewer Report For: Assessment of non-communicable diseases screening practices among university lecturers in Ghana – a cross sectional single centre study [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2023, 12:746 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.147697.r184050)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2
VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 26 Jun 2023
Comment
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Sign In
If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

Email address not valid, please try again

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.

Code not correct, please try again
Email us for further assistance.
Server error, please try again.