Cardiovascular Risk and Lifestyle: comparison between teaching workers in Portugal and Brazil.
Noeli das Neves Toledo, Gilsirene Scantelbury de Almeida, Nair Chase da Silva and 5 others
PMID 38896711WHAT IT FOUND
Among school workers in Portugal and Brazil, male sex, smoking and high blood pressure were the strongest factors linked to elevated cardiovascular risk.
Portuguese workers showed higher rates of smoking and high risk than Brazilian workers.
Key findings
01Male sex, smoking and systolic blood pressure were the variables most strongly associated with high and moderate cardiovascular risk in the final regression model.
02Participants from Portugal had higher percentages of moderate and high cardiovascular risk compared to those from Brazil.
03Almost half of the Brazilian participants were classified as having a regular or improving lifestyle, and 83.9% reported no improvement in habits over the last two years.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The sample size was smaller than the estimated requirement. The study used a non-probabilistic random sample, meaning participants chose whether to take part, which may introduce selection bias. There was a difference in the types of workers recruited: teachers from Portugal and administrative technicians from Brazil, which may affect comparability. The cross-sectional design cannot establish causality between the risk factors and the cardiovascular outcomes.
Declared interests
The study was supported by Brazilian government funding agencies (CAPES, FAPEAM) and the Federal University of Amazonas. No commercial conflicts of interest are declared.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the high odds ratios for smoking and male sex as proof that these factors caused the cardiovascular risk in this specific group. The study is cross-sectional, so it only shows an association at one point in time, not a cause-and-effect relationship.