Abstract
Dear Editor,
We read with great interest the article titled “Predictive Analysis of Cardiovascular Risk Among University Professionals.” The study is particularly compelling because it challenges the common assumption that the university is inherently a healthy workplace. Instead, it demonstrates that cardiovascular risk is unevenly distributed within the academic community itself. In their sample of 1,483 university workers, administrative personnel exhibited higher cardiovascular morbidity and mortality risk than faculty, with administrative personnel holding government contracts emerging as a particularly vulnerable group. The study also showed that lower levels of physical activity were more common among certain occupational groups, underscoring how work structure and professional role can shape health outcomes (Hernández-Martín et al., 2025).
These findings are highly relevant to the Philippine setting, where cardiovascular disease remains a major public health burden. The Philippine Statistics Authority data for 2023 show that ischemic heart disease is the leading cause of death, accounting for 100,848 deaths (19.0% of total deaths), while cerebrovascular diseases rank third with 53,577 deaths (10.1%; Presidential Communications Office, 2024). The World Health Organization (2022) likewise identifies cardiovascular diseases as the leading cause of mortality in the Philippines and highlights insufficient physical activity as a persistent population-level risk factor. In many Philippine universities, particularly in public institutions, administrative and support personnel often work under conditions characterized by prolonged sitting, repetitive tasks, tight schedules, and limited opportunities for movement. These realities mirror the structural patterns identified in the study and suggest that similar inequalities in cardiovascular risk may exist within local academic institutions.
The key contribution of Hernández-Martín et al. (2025) is that it shifts the conversation from individual responsibility to institutional accountability. Cardiovascular risk in the workplace is not solely a matter of personal lifestyle choices but is also shaped by the organization of work itself (Kasl, 1996). In the university setting, this means that lifestyle-related risks such as physical inactivity, unhealthy food choices, inadequate sleep, and prolonged sedentary behavior are often reinforced by workplace routines rather than freely chosen. Moreover, mental health must also be considered as part of cardiovascular prevention. Chronic stress, burnout, emotional strain, and heavy workloads can intensify cardiovascular vulnerability, especially when employees have limited time, space, or institutional support to recover (Borkowski & Borkowska, 2024). Environmental factors likewise deserve attention. Campuses that lack walkable spaces, shaded areas, proper ventilation, green environments, or accessible wellness facilities may unintentionally discourage movement and contribute to unhealthy daily patterns (Münzel et al., 2022).
If certain employee groups are structurally less able to engage in healthy behaviors, then workplace health promotion must also be structural and responsive. In the Philippine context, this calls for more intentional and equitable institutional strategies. Universities should move beyond symbolic or occasional wellness initiatives and invest in sustainable health-promoting environments. This includes establishing accessible and affordable campus-based gym or fitness centers, developing walking-friendly and green spaces, improving the nutritional environment in canteens, and implementing structured physical activity programs that employees can realistically engage in during or around working hours. These initiatives should be designed with sensitivity to the specific constraints of different employee groups, particularly administrative personnel whose routines may limit opportunities for movement (Hernández-Martín et al., 2025).
Equally important is the institutionalization of regular annual physical examinations as a meaningful component of preventive care. Routine screening for cardiovascular risk factors, such as blood pressure, blood glucose, lipid profile, and body mass index, should be conducted consistently and linked to appropriate follow-up interventions. These examinations should not be treated as mere compliance requirements, but as part of a broader culture of prevention that also includes counseling on nutrition, sleep, stress management, smoking, alcohol use, and mental well-being. When properly implemented, annual health assessments can facilitate early detection, promote health awareness, and support timely management of risk, especially among employees whose sedentary work patterns may obscure underlying conditions.
All in all, universities are not only centers of knowledge production but also workplaces that shape the well-being of their communities. A healthy university should not be assumed; it must be deliberately built through policies, infrastructure, and practices that promote equitable health for all employees. The findings of Hernández-Martín et al. (2025) serve as a timely reminder that cardiovascular prevention in academic institutions must be inclusive, preventive, and structural. In the Philippine setting, this means creating environments where healthy lifestyles are supported, mental health is protected, environmental conditions promote well-being, preventive screening is institutionalized, and no group of workers is left disproportionately at risk.
