QUALITY OF LIFE OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION PROFESSORS: A CLUSTER ANALYSIS

QUALIDADE DE VIDA DE PROFESSORES UNIVERSITÁRIOS DE EDUCAÇÃO FÍSICA: UMA ANÁLISE DE CLUSTERS

ABSTRACT

Teaching in Higher Education requires involvement in several roles that can affect perceived quality of life within this class of workers. This study sought to determine the quality of life profiles of Physical Education professors and to associate them with their personal and professional characteristics. A total of 93 professors from the Greater Florianópolis mesoregion participated. A profiling questionnaire and the Whoqol-bref were used, in addition to Cluster analysis, the Ward method, and the Kruskal-Wallis, Friedman’s and Chi-Square tests. Three groups of professors were identified: Group I had a more negative perception and lower scores in the whole quality of life construct (no involvement in extension); Group II had a more positive perception and higher quality of life scores (extension program coordinators); Group III had a regular perception of the overall assessment and of the physical and psychological domains, and intermediate scores compared to the other Groups (university extension collaborators).

Keywords:
Professors; Higher Education; Quality of Life

RESUMO

A docência no Ensino Superior exige o envolvimento em diversas funções que podem afetar a percepção de qualidade de vida desta classe de trabalhadores. O estudo buscou determinar os perfis de qualidade de vida de professores de Educação Física do Ensino Superior e associá-los às suas características pessoais e profissionais. Participaram 93 professores da mesorregião da Grande Florianópolis. Utilizou-se um questionário de caracterização e o Whoqol-bref e empregou-se análise de Clusters, método Ward e testes Kruskal Wallis, Friedman e Qui-Quadrado. Identificou-se três grupos de professores: Grupo I apresentou percepção mais negativa e escores menores em todo constructo da qualidade de vida (sem vínculos com a extensão); Grupo II revelou percepção mais positiva e escores mais elevados da qualidade de vida (coordenadores de ações extensionistas); Grupo III apresentou percepção regular da avaliação geral e dos domínios físico e psicológico e escores intermediários quando comparados aos demais Grupos (colaboradores da extensão universitária).

Palavras-chave:
Professores; Ensino Superior; Qualidade de vida

Introduction

Professors are considered individuals in total connection with society and the educational system, having the competence to train and help future professionals grow and take on their responsibility in the job market¹. Teaching in higher education requires, therefore, that this professional has competence in their field of knowledge, with mastery of basic knowledge and professional experience in their intervention space. Thus, professors need constant updating through participation in continuing education programs that provide them with professional enhancement. They are also required to develop research projects aimed at the production of new and unpublished scientific knowledge or the production of cutting-edge technologies².

University teaching also requires professors to perform a set of functions that go beyond lecturing: teaching, research, extension and administration in various sectors of the institution. In this sense, the reality of professors demands, in addition to Undergraduate and Graduate teaching activities, a variety of other ones, such as counseling, management, extension, research, publications, meetings, participation in events and boards, final papers, theses and dissertations³.

Considering that teaching spans the knowledge of the disciplines taught, the conditions and psychosocial risks to which professors are exposed in their workplace⁴, it can be taken as a professional activity of great importance and with numerous particularities. In this way, it is recognized that the professional category of educators can be exposed to conflicting environments and high work demands. In the case of professors, the reality of this class can impact the way they assess their quality of life⁵. Quality of life presents itself as a complex organization that is different for each individual, depending on the context in which they are inserted⁶.

Regarding the quality of life construct, it is defined as an individual’s understanding of their life, in the face of the culture and value system in the environment in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns⁷. Furthermore, the combination of factors that modify and characterize the life of each individual results in a network of phenomena and events that can abstractly influence quality of life. In general, factors such as: health status; longevity; job satisfaction; wage; leisure; family relationships; disposition; pleasure; and spirituality⁸.

When it comes to the quality of life of professors, they must have a more positive perception of their quality of life so that institutions meet their goals of excellence in the quality of services provided, in addition to minimizing the emotional costs that may end up involving expenses with workers’ health⁹. Thus, knowing how this population perceives their quality of life can bring important information to the scientific community, in addition to becoming of fundamental importance, both for this class of workers and their managers. It is important for public and private managers of Higher Education Institutions to develop intervention projects¹⁰ aimed at pleasurable activities in their own professional routine¹¹, as well as the promotion of spaces for professors to be able to communicate their anxieties and questions, and spaces for assistance among professors, with a view to contributing to their own practice process¹².

However, it is noteworthy that the literature still presents few investigations, with a qualitative^10),(11) or quantitative^12)-(14) approach, involving the matter of quality of life, especially when it comes to analyzing possible differences among educators themselves. It is also important to conduct a study with professionals in the Physical Education field, as they are linked to the Health field and, oftentimes, work with issues involving quality of life in the day-to-day of their profession. In light of the foregoing, the objective of this study is to determine the quality of life profiles of Physical Education professors and to associate these profiles with their personal and professional characteristics.

Methodological procedures

Participants

This cross-sectional research was carried out in five Higher Education Institutions in the Greater Florianópolis mesoregion, state of Santa Catarina, which totaled a population of 114 Physical Education professors. The sample, characterized as a census (“measurement of specific characteristics of a universe of physical and social objects, verified in all units or elements that make up such universe or population” - Sass 2012, p. 133), since all of the professors were invited to participate in the study, consisted of 93 professors from Physical Education undergraduate courses, accounting for 81.6% of the population.

The inclusion criteria for the professors corresponded to: professors with initial training in Physical Education; professors working in face-to-face Teaching and/or Bachelor’s degree course(s) in Physical Education. On the other hand, the exclusion criteria were: professors with initial training in Physical Education working only in other undergraduate course(s); professors with initial training in other fields of knowledge and working in Teaching and/or Bachelor’s Degree course(s) in Physical Education; professors with initial training in Physical Education working in Teaching and/or Bachelor’s Degree course(s) in Physical Education, in the distance-learning modality.

Instruments

Data were collected by means of an online form containing two questionnaires: WHOQOL-bref and teacher profiling questionnaire. To assess the professors’ quality of life, the Whoqol-bref (translated and validated¹⁵) was used. This research instrument contains 26 questions - two referring to general quality of life, and 24 questions related to quality of life domains. The quality of life domains correspond to: physical; psychological; social relationships; and environment. Regarding the answers to the WHOQOL-bref questions, they are presented on an ordinal scale from 1 to 5 and must consider the last 15 days lived by the individuals surveyed¹⁶, reflecting a syntax from 0 (negative) to 100 (positive). This instrument is cross-culturally validated and translated into several languages, presenting efficient data on the understanding of factors specific to quality of life¹⁷. In the case of the Brazilian reality, the validation showed acceptable characteristics as to internal consistency, discriminant validity, criterion validity, concurrent validity, and test-retest reliability¹⁵.

The profiling questionnaire was built specifically for the study. The 28 items that compose it cover the professors’ personal characteristics (sex, marital status, children, city of residence, degree) and professional characteristics (organization and administrative category, city, length of service, employment relationship, sources of income, weekly workload, level of teaching, work shifts, disciplines, research and extension projects, administrative positions, sick leaves).

Data collection procedure

Initially, representatives of Higher Education Institutions were contacted to be presented with the objectives and procedures of this study and to be requested authorization for the Research Project. Upon authorization, the latter was submitted to and approved by the Ethics Committee on Research Involving Human Beings (legal opinion 2.710.718/2018).

The subjects’ participation in the investigation was made possible through an online form, available on Google Forms. An e-mail with information about the research development process was sent to Physical Education professors at Higher Education Institutions of Greater Florianópolis. The e-mail contained a link to the Free and Informed Consent Form of the research, in which the professors had two options to click after reading it: ‘accept participation’ or ‘decline participation’. Professors who agreed to participate in the investigation were directed to the online form.

The completion of the online form was available from September 15 to October 31, 2018 (45 days), with the professors being contacted at three moments. Upon form completion, the professors’ answers were redirected to the research e-mail and automatically saved in an Excel spreadsheet (2013).

Statistical treatment

In data analysis, initially, Cluster analysis was used to evidence the professors’ quality of life profiles. For the Cluster analysis, the R-Squared formula was used to establish the groups. The R-Squared addresses the different groups in each algorithm, which is a measure of the percentage of the total variability that is retained in each solution of the clusters¹⁸. In view of this, Figure 1 shows the formula used to establish the study clusters.

Figure 1
Formula used for the cluster choice procedure

In the statistical treatment, the Ward method was used, considering the measurement of the Euclidean distance of the square. The Kruskal-Wallis test was applied to identify the differences in quality of life among the clusters, while Friedman’s test was used to identify the dimensions that stood out in each cluster. Dunn’s multiple comparison test was employed, both in the Kruskal-Wallis test and in Friedman’s test, for a detailed assessment of the information. To assess sociodemographic variables, considering the quality of life clusters found, the chi-square test was used for a single group in order to identify the professor representation tendency in each cluster. In all analyses, a significance level of 95% (p<0.05) was adopted, using the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) software, version 20.0.

Results

The cluster analysis revealed three groups of Physical Education professors working in Greater Florianópolis (Figure 2).

Figure 2
Cluster analysis performed with professors of Physical Education courses

Professors in Group I had a more negative perception and lower scores in the whole quality of life construct (overall and domains) compared to the other groups. Professors in Group II had a more positive perception and higher scores in the quality of life assessment (overall and domains). On the other hand, those in Group III had a positive perception of their social relationships, a regular perception of the overall assessment and of the physical and psychological domains, and a negative perception of the environment, being the group with intermediate scores in the overall assessment and in the quality of life domains, with the exception of social relationships (Table 1).

Table 1
Professors’ quality of life profiles

Quality of life	Groups			p*
	Group I (33) Md(Q1-Q3)	Group II (33) Md(Q1-Q3)	Group III (27) Md(Q1-Q3)
Physical	64.29(53.57-71.43)a-z	82.14(78.57-89.29)b-z	71.43(64.29-75.00)a-z	<0.001
Psychological	62.50(52.08-66.67)a-z	79.17(75.00-87.50)b-z	70.83(66.67-75.00)c-z	<0.001
Social relationships	58.33(45.83-66.67)a-y	75.00(75.00-83.33)b-z	75.00(75.00-83.33)b-y	<0.001
Environment	55.38(53.13-64.06)a-z	78.13(71.88-84.38)b-y	65.63(62.50-71.88)c-z	<0.001
Overall assessment	59.64(54.19-63.91)a-z	80.06(76.67-83.59)b-z	71.50(68.30-74.11)c-z	<0.001
P		0.036	0.029	<0.001

• Note: Legend Md= Median; Q1-Q3=Quartiles; a-b-c= line; y-z= column
• Source: The authors

The Physical Education professors’ sociodemographic characteristics, according to the clusters of quality of life assessment, showed significant statistical differences among the three groups only for involvement in extension programs and projects. Group I (more negative perception) had the professors who did not participate in programs and projects, while Group II (more positive perception) had the coordinating professors. Group III (intermediate assessment) was predominantly composed of professors who collaborated in these actions (Table 2).

Table 2
Quality of life profiles, considering the Physical Education professors’ personal and professional characteristics

Sociodemographic variables	Groups			p
	Cluster I n(%)	Cluster II n(%)	Cluster III n(%)
Sex				0.832
Female	17(51.5)	15(45.5)	12(44.5)
Male	16(48.5)	18(54.5)	15(55.6)
Marital status				0.726
With a partner	24(72.7)	25(75.8)	22(81.5)
No partner	9927.3)	8(24.2)	5(18.5)
Children				0.218
Yes	15(45.5)	15(45.5)	7(25.9)
No	18(54.5)	18(54.5)	20(74.1)
Degree				0.931
Master's	10(30.3)	12(36.6)	11(40.7)
PhD	18(54.5)	16(48.5)	13(48.1)
Post-doc	5(15.2)	5(15.2)	3(11.1)
Institution's administration				0.455
Public	27(81.8)	24(72.7)	23(85.2)
Private	6(18.2)	9(27.3)	4(14.8)
Institution as main income				0.561
Yes	28(84.8	26(78.8)	24(88.9)
No	5(15.2)	7(21.2)	3(11.1)
Pluriemployment				0.831
Yes	8(24.2)	10(30.3)	8(29.6)
No	25(75.8)	23(69.7)	19(70.4)
Research project				0.816
Coordinator	13(39.4)	15(45.5)	11(40.7)
Collaborator	11(33.3)	9(27.3)	11(40.7)
Do not participate	29(27.3)	9(27.3)	5(18.5)
Extension program				0.050
Coordinator	5(15.2)	11(33.3)	6(22.2)
Collaborator	8(24.2)	5(15.2)	12(44.4)
Do not participate	20(60.6)	17(51.5)	9(33.3)
Extension project				0.012
Coordinator	9(27.3)	15(45.5)	9(33.3)
Collaborator	9(27.3)	5(15.2)	14(51.9)
Do not participate	15(45.5)	13(39.4)	4(14.8)
Role in the Institution's administration board				0.956
Yes	8(24.2)	7(21.2)	6(22.2)
No	25(75.8)	26(78.8)	21(77.8)
Administrative commissions				0.508
Yes	14(42.4)	18(54.5)	15(55.6)
No	19(57.6)	15(45.5)	12(44.4)
Sick leave				0.364
Yes	3(9.1)	6(18.2)	2(7.4)
No	30(90.9)	27(81.8)	25(92.6)
Age group				0.370
Up to 35 years	17(51.5)	11(33.3)	13(48.1)
36 to 50 years	10(30.3)	11(33.3)	10(37.0)
51 years or older	6(18.2)	11(33.3)	4(14.8)
Number of children				0.464
None	18(54.5)	18(54.5)	20(74.1)
One	7(21.2)	6(18.2)	2(7.4)
Two children or more	8(24.2)	9(27.3)	5(18.5)
Residence				0.211
Capital	25(75.8)	26(78.8)	25(92.6)
Metropolitan area	8(24.2)	7(21.2)	2(7.4)
Length of service (total)				0.618
Up to five years	5(15.2)	5(15.2)	4(14.8)
Six to 15 years	18(54.5)	12(36.4)	13(48.1)
16 years or more	10(30.3)	16(48.5)	10(37.0)
Length of service in Higher Education				0.427
Up to five years	13(39.4)	9(27.3)	10(37.0)
Six to 15 years	12(36.4)	10(30.3)	11(40.7)
16 years or more	8(24.2)	14(42.4)	6(22.2)
Length of service at the Institution				0.567
Up to five years	20(60.6)	17(51.5)	19(70.4)
Six to 15 years	5(15.2)	5(15.2)	4(14.8)
16 years or more	8(24.2)	11(33.3)	4(14.8)
Employment relationship				0.859
Collaborator - Public	11(33.3)	7(21.2)	7(25.9)
Permanent - Public	16(48.5)	19(57.6)	14(51.9)
Private	6(18.2)	7(21.2)	6(22.2)
Total workload				0.262
Up to 39 hours	8(25.0)	7(21.2)	6(22.2)
40 hours	14(43.8)	22(66.7)	17(63.0)
Over 40 hours	10(31.2)	4(12.1)	4(14.8)
HEI workload				0.462
Partial	17(51.5)	13(39.4)	10(37.0)
Total	16(48.5)	20(60.6	17(63.0)
Level in Higher Education				0.948
Undergraduate course	22(66.7)	21(63.6)	17(63.0)
Undergraduate and stricto sensu courses	11(33.3)	12(36.4)	10(37.0)
Number of disciplines				0.322
One discipline	2(6.2)	5(15.2)	4(14.8)
Two disciplines	10(31.2)	6(18.2)	6(22.2)
Three disciplines	6(18.8)	13(39.4)	10(37.0)
Four disciplines or more	14(43.8)	9(27.3)	7(25.9)
Number of shifts				0.235
One shift	13(39.4)	15(45.5)	8(29.6)
Two shifts	16(48.5)	15(45.5)	11(40.7)
Three shifts	4(12.1)	3(9.1)	8(29.6)
Number of administrative commissions				0.522
None	20(60.6)	16(48.5)	12(44.4)
One or two commissions	6(18.2)	11(33.3)	7(25.9)
Three or more	7(21.2)	6(18.2)	8(29.6)
Total	33(35.5)	33(35.5)	27(29.0)	0.679

• Source: The authors

Other personal and professional variables were not associated with the Quality of life groups.

Discussion

The initial objective of this study was to determine the quality of life profiles of Physical Education professors. The results found allowed the determination of three Groups of professors, with Group I presenting the most negative scores in relation to quality of life, while Group II had the most positive ones. Group III obtained regular scores in relation to their perceived quality of life, and intermediate in relation to the other groups.

The positive scores for perceived quality of life presented by Group II were similar to those of other quantitative investigations carried out with professors from different fields of knowledge and Brazilian regions^{6),(12),(14),(19),(20} when they were assessed as a single group. In its turn, the most negative perception of quality of life, presented by Group I, was similar to the findings of a qualitative study conducted with professors in the Health field in Espírito Santo¹⁰. Moreover, Group III presented regular scores, as did professors from other fields of knowledge in Rio de Janeiro²¹ and in the Midwest of Brazil⁵.

It is noteworthy that Cluster analysis has been used especially in studies in the Health field²², since it presents itself as a possibility of assessing clusters of investigated subjects by considering different variables. It aims to become an important tool for detecting groups with different analyses when the main variable investigated and the verification of these analyses are intended to allow for the improvement of interventions, taking into account the specificity of each detected cluster, especially for those that need improvements in the assessment of aspects of their life²³. In the specificity of this investigation, attention is drawn to the 33 professors composing Group I, as they present a more negative perception of the quality of life domains.

The negative perception of the quality of life of workers - in this case, of Physical Education professors - should be a concern on the part of institutions with the physical and psychological well-being of their employees, given that a negative assessment can reflect negatively on their personal and professional productivity²¹, which will impact on the quality of the education provided to future professionals in this field. Therefore, it is imperative that Higher Education Institutions invest in the university career of professors, so that they do not feel overwhelmed by the demands imposed in their work environment³.

Considering that, from the personal and professional characteristics of the investigated professors, only the variable linked to university extension showed significant statistical differences among the Groups of professors, taking into account their perceived quality of life, it is possible that other variables, not investigated, are influencing this perception. In the case of the most negative perception among the professors in Group I, it may be linked to variables such as: lack of time for leisure, for rest, and for social and family interaction; long working hours; poor diet, and poor sleep quality¹⁰.

Regarding the most positive perception of quality of life in Group II, it may derive from factors such as: personal and family income; working with activities of interest; time available to spend with family; engagement in physical activity, and personal fulfillment. These factors are worth highlighting, given that professional practice has been identified as a source of stability and personal and financial fulfillment¹⁴, and that the personal and professional variables studied did not explain the quality of life profiles found in the study. Corroborating the results for this investigated group, a systematic review study, which evaluated professors’ quality of life, reported a more positive perception from these individuals in conducted research²⁴.

The analysis of the only variable (involvement in university extension) that showed a statistically significant difference in quality of life assessment, among the groups of Physical Education professors, revealed that those not involved in extension programs and projects belonged to Group I (more negative quality of life assessment), while coordinating professors belonged to Group II (more positive), and collaborating ones belonged to Group III (intermediate).

University extension is characterized as an academic practice that enables greater university-society interaction, allowing professors to have contact with and intervene in emerging political and social demands in the community in which they are inserted²⁵. Thus, university extension allows educators to participate in actions capable of providing them with diversified professional experiences that promote a greater perception of professional competence and ability and help them academically and socially in their training, through the production of new knowledge²⁵. Such findings may be influencing the different perceptions of quality of life of the professors who make up the three Groups identified in this study.

In this scenario, the research carried out with Physical Education professors in the city of Florianópolis corroborates the reflections pointed out, given that the professionals reported the interest and pleasure they feel in working in extension activities, as the latter allow for a greater relationship with the community and contribute with benefits to the people who need their actions²⁶. In this way, from the differences in the perception of quality of life of the Groups of Physical Education professors, in terms of involvement in university extension and the reflections pointed out, it is perceived that it is extremely important for teachers not to leave or for them to join the extension actions of their institutions²⁷.

Conclusions

The data obtained in this study allowed the identification of three Groups of Physical Education professors working in the Greater Florianópolis mesoregion, Santa Catarina, considering the assessment of their quality of life. Professors in Group I had a more negative perception and lower scores in the whole quality of life construct, in addition to being the ones not participating in extension programs or projects. Group II showed the most positive perception of quality of life, being predominantly composed of professors who coordinate extension actions. Group III had its profile characterized by professors collaborating in university extension and showed an intermediate perception of the quality of life domains compared to the other groups of the analysis.

The limitation found for the development of this study involved the selection of variables and data collection instruments that did not help understand possible factors that influenced the quality of life assessment by the different clusters found among the Physical Education professors. In terms of practical application arising from the results of the study, we highlight the need for a closer look at the professors who evaluated their quality of life domains more negatively. The development of actions by Higher Education Institutions is recommended, either through continuing education, strategies, or psychological, physical and social assistance, in combination with improvements in working conditions and working hours that provide a better assessment, especially in the psychological domain. Furthermore, observing that involvement in extension projects and programs positively impact one’s perceived quality of life, their expansion in the university context is to be recommended; even psychological, physical and social care can be proposed through extension actions. In this scenario, based on the limitations presented, another recommendation is the conduction of complementary investigations that use other variables and data collection instruments, such as: well-being; mood state; depression; burnout syndrome; sleep quality; level of physical activity, and lifestyle. Such variables may help explain the quality of life clusters found, since the personal and professional variables analyzed in this study were unable to provide information for such an understanding.

Acknowledgements:

Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel [Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior] (CAPES)

References

• ¹
  Pocinho M, Fragoeiro JG. Satisfação dos docentes do Ensino Superior. Acta Col de Psic. 2012[cited on 30 jun 2022];15(1):87-97. Available from:Available from:https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-29599-009
  » https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-29599-009
• ²
  Masetto MT. Docência na Universidade. 11.ed. Campinas: Papirus; 2012.
• ³
  Souza AL, Alves CA, Figueiredo ZCC. A precarização do lazer docente frente às demandas do mundo do trabalho. In: XXCongresso Brasileiro de Ciências do Esporte e VII Congresso Internacional de Ciências do Esporte... Goiânia, 2017[cited on 30 jun 2022]:1742-1746. Available from: Available from: http://congressos.cbce.org.br/index.php/conbrace2017/7conice/
  » http://congressos.cbce.org.br/index.php/conbrace2017/7conice/
• ⁴
  Romero M, Blanch JM, Rentería E. Significado del trabajo y sentido de la profesión académica en el contexto flexible de la universidad en Colombia. Athenea Digital. 2016:16(2):427-435. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5565/rev/athenea
  » https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/athenea
• ⁵
  Gomes KK, Sanchez HM, Sanchez EGM, Sbroggio Júnior AL, Arantes Filho WM, Silva LA, et al. Qualidade de vida e qualidade de vida no trabalho em docentes da saúde de uma Instituição de Ensino Superior. Rev Bras Med Trab2017:15(1):18-28. DOI: 10.5327/Z1679443520177027
  » https://doi.org/10.5327/Z1679443520177027
• ⁶
  Conceição MRD, Costa MS, Almeida, MI, Souza AMA, Cavalcante, MBPT, Alves, MD. et al. Qualidade de vida do enfermeiro no trabalho docente: estudo com o WHOQOL-bref. Esc Anna Nery, 2012:16(2):320-325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1414-81452012000200016
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1414-81452012000200016
• ⁷
  World Health Organization WHO. Field trial WHOQOL-100 February 1995. Scoring the WHOQOL. Genebra: Who; 1995[ cited on 30 jun 2022]. Available from: Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/77084 .
  » https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/77084
• ⁸
  Nahas MV. Atividade física, saúde e qualidade de vida: conceitos e sugestões para um estilo de vida ativo. 7.ed.Londrina: Midiograf; 2017.
• ⁹
  Marco C, Rosell CM. Functional and rheological properties of protein enriched gluten free composite flours. Journal of Food Engineering 2008;88(1):94-103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2008.01.018
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2008.01.018
• ¹⁰
  Oliveira ERA et al. Gênero e qualidade de vida percebida - estudo com professores da área da saúde. Cien e Saúde Colet. 2012:17(3):741-747. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-81232012000300021
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-81232012000300021
• ¹¹
  Cruz AM, Almeida NG, Melo NA, Rodrigues DP, Figueiredo JV, Oliveira ACS. et al. Percepção da enfermeira docente sobre sua qualidade de vida. Rev Rene. 2015:16(3):382-390. DOI: 10.15253/2175-6783.2015000300011
  » https://doi.org/10.15253/2175-6783.2015000300011
• ¹²
  Koetz L, Rempel C, Périco E. Qualidade de vida de professores de Instituições de Ensino Superior comunitárias do Rio Grande do Sul. Cien e Saúde Colet, 2013[cited on30 jun 2022]:18(4):1019-1028. Available from: Available from: http://cienciaesaudecoletiva.com.br/artigos/qualidade-de-vida-de-professores-de-instituicoes-de-ensino-superior-comunitarias-do-rio-grande-do-sul/8805?id=8805
  » http://cienciaesaudecoletiva.com.br/artigos/qualidade-de-vida-de-professores-de-instituicoes-de-ensino-superior-comunitarias-do-rio-grande-do-sul/8805?id=8805
• ¹³
  Morimoto LES, Donadone VS, Pires KR, Chaud DMA. Qualidade de vida de professores da área da saúde de uma universidade de São Paulo. Hig. aliment .2016[cited on 30 jun 2022]:30(252):13-21. Available from: Available from: https://docs.bvsalud.org/biblioref/2017/07/846559/separata-13-21.pdf .
  » https://docs.bvsalud.org/biblioref/2017/07/846559/separata-13-21.pdf
• ¹⁴
  Souto JM. et al. Fatores associados à qualidade de vida de docentes da área da saúde. Rev BrasEduc Med. 2016;40(3):452-460. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1981-52712015v40n3e02362014
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-52712015v40n3e02362014
• ¹⁵
  Fleck MP. et al. Aplicação da versão em português do instrumento abreviado de avaliação da qualidade de vida “WHOQOL-bref”. Rev Saúde Pública. 2000[cited on30 jun 2022];34(2):178-183. Available from:Available from:https://www.lume.ufrgs.br/handle/10183/71401 .
  » https://www.lume.ufrgs.br/handle/10183/71401
• ¹⁶
  Word Health Organization WHO. WHOQOL measuring quality of life. Genebra: WHO, 1997[cited on 30 jun 2022]. Available from:Available from:https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/63482
  » https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/63482
• ¹⁷
  Skevington SM, Lotfy M, O’connell KA. The World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: Psychometric properties and results of the international field trial A Report from the WHOQOL Group. Quality of Life Research, 2004;(13)299-310. DOI: 10.1023/B:QURE.0000018486.91360.00
  » https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QURE.0000018486.91360.00
• ¹⁸
  Marroco J. Análise estatística com utilização do SPSS. 3.ed. Lisboa: Edições Sílabo; 2007.
• ¹⁹
  Cogo LLR, Gonçalves LO, Kerkoski E, Santos AA, Chesani FH. Perfil da qualidade de vida dos fisioterapeutas docentes do curso de Fisioterapia da Universidade do Vale do Itajaí. Rev Cont e Saúde, 2011;10(20):367-374. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21527/2176-7114.2011.20.367-374
  » https://doi.org/10.21527/2176-7114.2011.20.367-374
• ²⁰
  Oliveira Filho A, Netto-Oliveira ER, Oliveira AAB. Qualidade de vida e fatores de risco de professores universitários. J Phys Educ 2012;(23):57-67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4025/reveducfis.v23i1.10468
  » https://doi.org/10.4025/reveducfis.v23i1.10468
• ²¹
  Santos MPG, Silva KKD. Nível de estresse e qualidade de vida de professores do ensino superior. REUFSM2017;7(4):656-668. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5902/2179769225906
  » https://doi.org/10.5902/2179769225906
• ²²
  YoshimiTanaka O, Drumond M, Cristo EB, Spedo SM, Pinto NR. Uso da análise de clusters como ferramenta de apoio à gestão no SUS. Saúde Soc 2015;24(1):34-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-12902015000100003
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-12902015000100003
• ²³
  Franceschini J, Jardim JR, Fernandes ALG, Jamnik S, Santoro IS. Relação entre a magnitude de sintomas e a qualidade de vida: análise de agrupamentos de pacientes com câncer de pulmão no Brasil. J Bras Pneumol 2013;39(1):23-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-37132013000100004
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-37132013000100004
• ²⁴
  Araldi F, Poulsen FF, Guimarães ACA, Farias GO, Folle A. Qualidade de vida de professores do ensino superior: uma revisão sistemática. Retos2021;1(41):459-470. DOI: 10.47197/retos.v0i41.82136
  » https://doi.org/10.47197/retos.v0i41.82136
• ²⁵
  Coelho GC. O papel pedagógico da Extensão Universitária. Em Ext 2014;13(2):11-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14393/REE-v13n22014_art01
  » https://doi.org/10.14393/REE-v13n22014_art01
• ²⁶
  Milan FJ. Aprendizagem ao longo da vida de professores universitários de Educação Física. [Dissertação de Mestrado em Educação Física]. Florianópolis: Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Educação Física; 2019.
• ²⁷
  Dias AMI. Discutindo caminhos para a indissociabilidade entre ensino, pesquisa, extensão. RBDEPENF, 2009[cited on 30 jun 2022];1(1):37-52. Available from: Available from: https://livrozilla.com/doc/1304005/indissociabilidade-entre-ensino--pesquisa-e-extens%C3%A3o
  » https://livrozilla.com/doc/1304005/indissociabilidade-entre-ensino--pesquisa-e-extens%C3%A3o

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  12 Dec 2022
• Date of issue
  2022

History

• Received
  17 Aug 2021
• Reviewed
  09 June 2022
• Accepted
  25 June 2022