| Literature DB >> 25888434 |
Harry H X Wang1,2,3, Martin C S Wong4, Rosina Y Mok5, Mandy W M Kwan6,7, Wai Man Chan8, Carmen K M Fan9,10, Catherine L S Lee11, Sian M Griffiths12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A Reference Framework for Hypertension Care was recently developed by Hong Kong government to emphasise the importance of primary care for subjects with high blood pressure (BP). The Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) interventional regime was recommended for patients aged 40-70 years with grade 1 hypertension (having systolic BP of 140-159 mmHg and/or diastolic BP of 90-99 mmHg). This study explored factors associated with grade 1 hypertension among subjects screened in primary care settings.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25888434 PMCID: PMC4350626 DOI: 10.1186/s12875-015-0239-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Fam Pract ISSN: 1471-2296 Impact factor: 2.497
Figure 1Study flowchart.
Scio-demographic characteristics of study participants by blood pressure categories
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
| 53.41 (2.49) | 54.02 (3.45) | 54.15 (4.15) | 54.42 (4.02) | 0.332 |
|
| |||||
| Male | 18 (19.1%) | 83 (38.2%) | 166 (51.9%) | 32 (66.7%) | <0.001 |
| Female | 76 (80.9%) | 134 (61.8%) | 154 (48.1%) | 16 (33.3%) | |
|
| |||||
| Living alone | 6 (6.4%) | 14 (6.5%) | 6 (1.9%) | 4 (8.3%) | 0.022 |
| Living with others | 88 (93.6%) | 202 (93.5%) | 314 (98.1%) | 44 (91.7%) | |
|
| |||||
| Single | 7 (7.4%) | 19 (8.8%) | 6 (1.9%) | 3 (6.3%) | <0.001 |
| Married | 77 (81.9%) | 183 (84.7%) | 309 (96.6%) | 42 (87.5%) | |
| Divorced/separated | 8 (8.5%) | 11 (5.1%) | 4 (1.3%) | 2 (4.2%) | |
| Widowed | 2 (2.1%) | 3 (1.4%) | 1 (0.3%) | 1 (2.1%) | |
|
| |||||
| Illiteracy | 2 (2.2%) | 1 (0.5%) | 1 (0.3%) | 1 (2.2%) | 0.340 |
| Primary school | 9 (9.8%) | 25 (11.8%) | 41 (13.2%) | 2 (4.3%) | |
| Middle school | 14 (15.2%) | 43 (20.4%) | 64 (20.6%) | 12 (26.1%) | |
| High school | 47 (51.1%) | 98 (46.4%) | 150 (48.2%) | 16 (34.8%) | |
| Undergraduate or above | 20 (21.7%) | 44 (20.9%) | 55 (17.7%) | 15 (32.6%) | |
|
| |||||
| Unemployed | 14 (14.9%) | 12 (5.6%) | 61 (19.1%) | 9 (18.8%) | <0.001 |
| Employed | 63 (67.0%) | 166 (76.9%) | 226 (70.6%) | 32 (66.7%) | |
| Retired | 17 (18.1%) | 38 (17.6%) | 33 (10.3%) | 7 (14.6%) | |
|
| |||||
| $0-$9,999 | 32 (41.6%) | 54 (29.0%) | 25 (7.9%) | 7 (17.9%) | <0.001 |
| $10,000-$19,999 | 17 (22.1%) | 56 (30.1%) | 77 (24.4%) | 13 (33.3%) | |
| $20,000-$29,999 | 10 (13.0%) | 33 (17.7%) | 62 (19.7%) | 7 (17.9%) | |
| $30,000-$39,999 | 12 (15.6%) | 22 (11.8%) | 86 (27.3%) | 9 (23.1%) | |
| $40,000 and above | 6 (7.8%) | 21 (11.3%) | 65 (20.6%) | 3 (7.7%) | |
HT, hypertension; SD, Standard Deviation.
Univariate logistic regression analysis of variables associated with the presence of grade 1 hypertension
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Age, 60–70 years versus 40–50 years | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.283 | 1.02 | 0.98-1.07 |
| Gender, male | 0.84 | 0.17 |
| 2.31 | 1.67-3.20 |
| Living status, alone | 0.63 | 0.16 |
| 1.88 | 1.38-2.55 |
| Marital status, single | 0.13 | 0.23 | 0.562 | 1.14 | 0.73-1.79 |
| Education level, below secondary | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.207 | 1.09 | 0.96-1.23 |
| Monthly household income, ≤$19,999 | 0.36 | 0.18 |
| 1.44 | 1.01-2.05 |
| Unhealthy diet regime (assessment score <6) | 0.25 | 0.12 |
| 1.28 | 1.02-1.61 |
| Body mass index, BMI (>27.5 kg/m2) | 0.55 | 0.12 |
| 1.73 | 1.38-2.18 |
| Hours of active physical exercises per week | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.113 | 1.03 | 0.99-1.08 |
| Irregular daily meals on an arbitrary schedule | 0.03 | 0.01 |
| 1.03 | 1.01-1.05 |
| Duration of cigarette smoking, per year | 0.65 | 0.09 |
| 1.92 | 1.60-2.31 |
| Daily cigarette consumption, per pack | 0.05 | 0.02 |
| 1.06 | 1.01-1.10 |
| Duration of alcohol drinking, per year | 0.48 | 0.06 |
| 1.61 | 1.42-1.82 |
| Weekly binge drinking, per occasion | 0.38 | 0.17 |
| 1.46 | 1.05-2.05 |
| Presence of parental history of hypertension | 1.16 | 0.52 |
| 3.20 | 1.15-8.91 |
B: Beta coefficient, SE: Standard Error, OR: Odds Ratio, CI: Confidence Interval.
Note: Cigarette consumption was measured as the average amount of cigarette consumption per day, according to the number of packs smoked per day (20 cigarettes per pack). Binge drinking of alcohol was defined as having five servings of alcohol (for males) or four servings (for females) on one occasion. Unhealthy diet regime was defined as having at least one dietary intake group with a dietary assessment score <6. The presence of irregular daily meals was defined as regularly skipping meals or eating meals on an arbitrary schedule.
Multiple logistic regression analysis of predictors of grade 1 hypertension
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Unhealthy diet regime (assessment score <6) | 0.79 | 0.38 |
| 2.19 | 1.04-4.62 |
| Body mass index, BMI (>27.5 kg/m2) | 0.62 | 0.10 |
| 1.87 | 1.53-2.27 |
| Irregular daily meals on an arbitrary schedule | 0.39 | 0.14 |
| 1.47 | 1.11-1.95 |
| Duration of cigarette smoking, per year | 0.60 | 0.26 |
| 1.83 | 1.11-3.02 |
| Daily cigarette consumption, per pack | 0.46 | 0.12 |
| 1.59 | 1.24-2.02 |
| Duration of alcohol drinking, per year | 0.50 | 0.17 |
| 1.65 | 1.18-2.33 |
| Weekly binge drinking, per occasion | 0.62 | 0.27 |
| 1.87 | 1.09-3.20 |
| Presence of parental history of hypertension | 0.08 | 0.03 |
| 1.08 | 1.02-1.15 |
B: Beta coefficient, SE: Standard Error, OR: Odds Ratio, CI: Confidence Interval.
Note: Logistic regression model includes terms of unhealthy diet regime (dietary assessment score <6), BMI (>27.5 kg/m2, high risk versus 18.5-22.9 kg/m2, increasing but acceptable risk), presence of irregular meals (regularly skipping meals or eating meals on an arbitrary schedule), duration of cigarette smoking and daily consumption (per pack [20 cigarettes per pack]), duration of alcohol consumption and frequency of weekly binge drinking (per occasion [five servings of alcohol for males or four servings for females on one occasion]), and parental history of hypertension (presence versus absence), based on backward stepwise algorithm selection from variables that were significant in the univariate analysis.
Figure 2Number of risk factors and predicted probability of grade 1 hypertension by gender.