| Literature DB >> 27169380 |
Mary-Anne Land1,2, Jason H Y Wu3,4, Adriana Selwyn3,4, Michelle Crino3,4, Mark Woodward3,4,5,6,7, John Chalmers3,4, Jacqui Webster3,4, Caryl Nowson8, Paul Jeffery9, Wayne Smith10, Victoria Flood10,11, Bruce Neal3,4,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Salt reduction is a public health priority but there are few studies testing the efficacy of plausible salt reduction programs.Entities:
Keywords: 24-hour urine; Cardiovascular disease prevention; Salt; Sodium
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27169380 PMCID: PMC4864903 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-016-3064-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Salt swap lithgow intervention components
| COMBI | Action |
|---|---|
| Administrative mobilization and public advocacy to engage stakeholders | A series of meetings were held with local government (12 meetings), local doctors (7 meetings) and allied health professionals (6 meetings) all ranging in duration from 0.5–1.0 h. |
| Community mobilization | A series of meetings were held with five of the largest employers in Lithgow (2 meetings), the local business association (1 meeting), business owners (predominately cafe, pub and restaurant owners–20 meetings) and community groups (11 meetings) all ranging in duration from 0.5–2.0 h. |
| Two specific tools (salt substitute and ‘ | |
| Advertising | Local channels of communication including letter box flyers, newspapers, radio and social media were all targeted with information and stories about the program. A series of specific advertising initiatives was scheduled for the period of the intervention during which two letter box drops, seven pieces of print media, one radio interview (replayed), one radio community announcement (replayed) and bi-weekly social media posts were done. |
| Interpersonal communication | Information booths were established in the two main shopping areas and manned for 80 days for about four hours on each occasion. About 500 individual homes were door-knocked by two team members who each worked on this activity for an average of 25 days. The salt substitute and smartphone application were used as talking points to engage individuals about the importance of reducing salt consumption as well as providing practical ways to achieve a reduction. |
| Point of service contact using tools to support interactions | The salt substitute was made available for use by consumers free-of-charge at local cafes and restaurants. In addition, government buildings and medical centers held stocks of the salt substitute that consumers could take at no cost. Approximately 8,000 (64 g) packs of salt substitute were provided to the community during the course of the intervention. The smartphone application, ‘ |
Data presented in this table describes the intervention components within the Communication for Behavioural Impact (COMBI) integrated communication model
Fig. 1Flow chart. Flow chart shows the research design and recruitment of individuals
Characteristics of participants
| Baseline | Follow-up | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Random ( | Volunteer ( | Random followed from baseline ( | Random new ( | Volunteer followed from baseline ( | Volunteer new ( |
| |
| Female (%) | 53 | 61 | 56 | 61 | 61 | 58 | 0.25 |
| Age, years range (mean) | 20–88 (58) | 20–84 (49) | 29–90 (64) | 21–90 (60) | 22–83 (60) | 20–89 (52) | 0.49‡ |
| Height, cm mean (SD) | 168 (10) | 167 (8.8) | 166 (9.6) | 166 (10.2) | 168 (8.9) | 167 (10) | 0.38 |
| Weight, kg mean (SD) | 82 (17.1) | 84 (20.6) | 82 (16.9) | 84 (24.1) | 86 (26) | 82 (19.9) | 0.90 |
| BMI, kg/m2 mean (SD) | 29 (5.1) | 30 (6.6) | 29 (5.9) | 30 (7.0) | 30 (8.3) | 29 (6.6) | 0.45 |
| Systolic bp, mmHg mean | 127 | 124 | 127 | 133 | 131 | 126 | 0.10 |
| Diastolic bp, mmHg mean | 79 | 79 | 78 | 81 | 82 | 80 | 0.27 |
| Creatinine mmol mean (SD) | 12.0 (3.8) | 12.0 (4.2) | 11.0 (3.6) | 12.0 (4.3) | 12 (3.8) | 12 (4.4) | 0.31 |
| Urine volume, ml mean (SD) | 1930 (808) | 2012 (868) | 1957 (859) | 2082 (875) | 1867 (747) | 1930 (823) | 0.94 |
| Education (%) | 0.01 | ||||||
| Secondary | 64 | 56 | 55 | 49 | 50 | 45 | |
| Tertiary | 26 | 33 | 40 | 46 | 44 | 47 | |
| Postgraduate | 10 | 12 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 8 | |
| Health Status (%) | |||||||
| Very good | 50 | 49 | 33 | 30 | 19 | 31 | 0.12 |
| Good | 30 | 24 | 42 | 44 | 42 | 43 | |
| Fair | 20 | 27 | 25 | 26 | 39 | 26 | |
| Smoking status (%) | |||||||
| Current smoker (>1/day) | 8 | 22 | 7 | 6 | 14 | 18 | 0.67 |
| Ever smoked (>1/day) | 41 | 53 | 37 | 39 | 50 | 42 | |
| Alcohol consumption (time since last drink) One week or less | 62 | 43 | 58 | 58 | 40 | 53 | |
| 12 months or more | 38 | 57 | 42 | 42 | 60 | 47 | 0.20 |
| Have you ever been told by a nurse of doctor that you have (%) | |||||||
| High blood pressure | 44 | 30 | 55 | 42 | 50 | 40 | 0.02 |
| Heart attack | 8 | 4 | 11 | 9 | 6 | 3 | 0.62 |
| Stroke | 4 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0.57 |
| Angina | 7 | 4 | 8 | 7 | 11 | 5 | 0.93 |
| Diabetes | 11 | 7 | 13 | 15 | 11 | 11 | 0.25 |
| Prescription Medication † (%) | |||||||
| Antihypertensive | 22 | 20 | 37 | 31 | 26 | 23 | 0.03 |
| Lipid lowering | 16 | 18 | 30 | 22 | 14 | 17 | 0.20 |
| Aspirin | 8 | 3 | 21 | 14 | 9 | 8 | 0.01 |
| Glucose lowering | 5 | 9 | 9 | 11 | 12 | 7 | 0.13 |
| Any prescription medication | 66 | 53 | 79 | 83 | 60 | 60 | 0.10 |
*Age comparison presented is for the new random and volunteer sample with the baseline sample, excluding paired participants (the same random and volunteer sample sampled at baseline at follow-up)
†Participants could be taking more than one prescribed medication
‡ p-value compared mean values across all baseline vs. all follow-up
Fig. 2Effect of intervention on urinary salt excretion. Data presented are mean 24-hour urinary salt g/day (95% confidence interval) for continuous characteristics, paired and unpaired t-test for matched and unmatched subjects. Results were then pooled by inverse variance weighted meta-analysis as calculated using a fixed effect inverse-variance weighted method
Effects of intervention on knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours towards salt
| Baseline | Follow-up | Adjusted prevalence ratio (95 % CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 ( | 2014 ( |
| ||
| Do you add salt to your food at the table? | ||||
| Always | 21.2 | 19.4 | 0.98 (0.75–1.28) | 0.88 |
| Do you add salt to food when cooking? | ||||
| Always | 19.1 | 20.1 | 1.14 (0.88–1.48) | 0.32 |
| How much salt do you think you consume? | ||||
| Too much | 27.9 | 30.1 | 1.10 (0.89–1.35) | 0.37 |
| Maximum salt consumption recommendation? | ||||
| Correctly identified as <6 g | 18.2 | 28.7 | 1.53 (1.19–1.96) | 0.001 |
| High salt cause serious health problems? | ||||
| Yes | 95.0 | 95.3 | 1.0 (0.97–1.02) | 0.76 |
| How important is lowering salt in your diet? | ||||
| Important | 63.7 | 78.2 | 1.23 (1.13–1.34) | <0.001 |
| Do you do anything to regularly control your salt intake? | ||||
| Yes | 63.3 | 60.1 | 0.94 (0.85–1.04) | 0.22 |
| Do you avoid processed foods? | ||||
| Yes | 44.2 | 35.3 | 0.80 (0.68–0.94) | 0.006 |
| Do you check food labels? | ||||
| Yes | 30.0 | 24.5 | 0.77 (0.62–0.95) | 0.02 |
| Do you buy low salt alternatives? | ||||
| Yes | 33.9 | 32.0 | 0.94 (0.78–1.13) | 0.48 |
| Do you use spices? | ||||
| Yes | 4.8 | 28.3 | 5.83 (3.70–9.20) | <0.001 |
| Do you avoid eating out | ||||
| Yes | 20.8 | 34.4 | 1.58 (1.26–1.99) | <0.001 |
Data shows unadjusted prevalence percentage and adjusted prevalence ratio (95 % confidence intervals) as calculated using a modified Poisson regression for unmatched data and a generalized estimating equation for the matched data