Most women attending Kasoa Polyclinic lacked a clear understanding of metabolic syndrome. Only 37 of 174 participants (21.3%) described it as a condition that increases risk for heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Few recognised the clinically higher-risk pattern of central adiposity — 40 women (23.0%) identified central or “apple-shaped” fat as high risk — and only 31 (17.8%) reported awareness that dietary recommendations exist for prevention. Investigators reported these figures directly from interviewer-assisted questionnaires administered in June and July 2024. These gaps in basic knowledge point to limited recognition of the syndrome’s defining features within this peri-urban clinic population.
Lifestyle behaviours with adverse cardiometabolic implications were common and frequent. Two-thirds (116; 66.7%) reported no weekly physical activity. Daily consumption of sugary drinks was reported by 109 women (62.6%); 100 women (57.5%) reported daily processed or fast food intake. Stress levels were high for many respondents — 103 (59.2%) reported high stress — and 94 participants (54.0%) slept less than six hours per night. The study team collected these data using a structured questionnaire and presented them as counts and percentages. These behaviour patterns frame modifiable targets for clinical counselling in primary-care settings.
Self-reported diagnoses were notable in magnitude: hypertension in 60 women (34.5%) and type 2 diabetes in 49 women (28.2%). Preventive advice and self-monitoring were less consistent. Investigators found that 59 participants (33.9%) had never received advice on prevention, and 105 (60.3%) did not routinely monitor weight or waist circumference. The authors reported these findings as part of the descriptive results; they are based on participant self-report rather than medical record verification. The frequency of self-reported disease alongside low preventive engagement suggests missed prevention opportunities in this clinic cohort.
The study examined bivariate associations using Pearson’s chi-square test and reported several statistically significant links. Self-reported type 2 diabetes was more frequent among women who slept under six hours (36.2% in that subgroup; p = 0.035) and varied with reported stress level (p = 0.028), though the highest frequency occurred among women reporting low stress. Self-reported hypertension was more common in women reporting high stress (42.7%; p = 0.022) and was associated with reporting some physical activity (p = 0.005). The authors emphasised these were bivariate, cross-sectional associations from self-report data and did not imply causation.
Investigators conducted a descriptive cross-sectional survey of 174 women aged 18–45 years. Recruitment was by convenience sampling at Kasoa Polyclinic. Data collection used a structured, interviewer-assisted questionnaire covering knowledge, lifestyle behaviours, self-reported diagnoses and preventive practices. Results were summarised as frequencies and percentages. Associations between selected lifestyle factors and self-reported conditions were tested with Pearson’s chi-square. The source did not report any multivariable modelling results; only bivariate tests were presented in the article.
The authors explicitly cautioned that the reported associations are bivariate and based on self-report, and therefore should be interpreted cautiously. The design used convenience sampling at a single peri-urban primary clinic, which limits generalisability beyond this service population. The article did not report objective clinical measures or validation of diagnoses against medical records; those data were self-reported. Data availability was noted — the dataset can be requested from the corresponding author subject to ethics conditions. These documented limitations leave several practical questions unresolved: would objective screening alter prevalence estimates? Which counselling strategies at this clinic would most effectively change behaviours? And which interventions are feasible, acceptable and sustainable in this setting? The study stops at these pragmatic gaps and does not report intervention testing or longer-term follow-up.