| Literature DB >> 29716703 |
Prasanta K Borah1, Hem C Kalita2, Suman K Paine3, Purnananda Khaund4, Chandra Bhattacharjee5, Dilip Hazarika6, Meenakshi Sharma7, Jagadish Mahanta8.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: High salt diet increases blood pressure. Tea garden workers (TGW) of Assam, India have high (60.8%) prevalence of hypertension (HTN), which may be due to consumption of extra salt (salt as side dish) and salted tea at work place and home. The present study evaluated an information, education and communication (IEC) module to reduce salt intake and blood pressure among TGW.Entities:
Keywords: Blood pressure; Dietary salt; Hypertension; Tea garden worker
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29716703 PMCID: PMC5993981 DOI: 10.1016/j.ihj.2017.08.008
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Indian Heart J ISSN: 0019-4832
Different levels of IEC intervention.
| Target population | Focused area of discussion & Methodology applied | Key message | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Level 1 | General Manager, Manager, Assistant Manager and Welfare Officer | HTN burden and health care cost | Restrict salted tea at work place |
Loss of disability adjusted life years (DALYs) | |||
Complete restriction of salted tea at work place | |||
Through lectures and group discussion | |||
Frequency: Monthly before initiation of intervention then six monthly | |||
| Level 2 | Medical officer and staff of the garden hospital | Health risk associated with salted tea at work place and salt as side dish | Dietary salt restriction is required for healthy heart |
Through group discussion | |||
Frequency: Three-monthly | |||
| Level 3 | Key stake holders including union, religious leaders, NGOs, school teachers and other welfare organization | HTN related morbidity and mortality | Restrict dietary salt by avoiding salted tea and salt as side dish |
Health care cost | |||
Avoid salted tea & salt as side dish | |||
Motivated through lectures & group discussion | |||
Frequency: Three-monthly | |||
| Level 4 | Motivational and awareness programme for school children | Health hazards of high salt & hypertension | Restrict dietary salt for yourself and your parents to control blood pressure |
Restrict dietary salt as side dish & salted tea | |||
Restrict packaged food with high salt | |||
Through lectures, group discussion & Health rally with school children | |||
Frequency: Three-monthly | |||
| Level 5 | Study participants and community by and large | Health hazards of high salt & hypertension | Restrict dietary salt by avoiding salted tea and salt as side dish |
Restrict dietary salt as side dish & salted tea | |||
Restrict packaged food with high salt | |||
Through group discussion, lectures | |||
Posters, Documentary and personal contact | |||
Frequency: Three-monthly | |||
Fig. 1Represents the flow chart of study design.
Baseline socio-demographic and clinical variables in non- intervention vs. intervention TGW subjects.
| Variables | Non Intervention (N = 194) | Intervention (N = 199) | p values |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male, N (%) | 109 (56.2) | 97 (48.7) | 0.084 |
| Age, years (mean ± SD) | 40.4 ± 15.5 | 44.5 ± 14.4 | 0.06 |
| Educational status N (%) | |||
| Illiterate | 113 (58.2) | 108 (54.3) | 0.139 |
| Primary | 64 (33.3) | 82 (41.2) | |
| Higher secondary and above | 17 (8.7) | 9 (4.5) | |
| Monthly income (Rs) | |||
| Up to 2000 | 74 (38.1) | 105 (52.8) | 0.009 |
| 2000 to 3000 | 30 (15.5) | 15 (7.5) | |
| 3000 | 15 (7.8) | 19 (9.5) | |
| Not applicable | 75 (38.7) | 60 (30.2) | |
| Physical activity, N (%) | |||
| Light | 27 (13.9) | 42 (21.1) | 0.000 |
| Moderate | 144 (74.2) | 71 (35.7) | |
| Heavy | 23 (11.9) | 86 (43.2) | |
| Dietary salt as a side dish, N (%) | 140 (72.2) | 132 (66.3) | 0.126 |
| Tobacco consumption, N (%) | 130 (67.0) | 143 (71.9) | 0.175 |
| Alcohol consumption, N (%) | 107 (55.2) | 127 (63.8) | 0.05 |
| Smoking, N (%) | 13 (6.7) | 17 (8.5) | 0.031 |
| BMI, (mean ± SD) | 19.2 ± 2.5 | 18.1 ± 2.4 | 0.572 |
| SBP, mmHg (mean ± SD) | 141.6 ± 19.5 | 140.4± 26.9 | 0.711 |
| DBP, mmHg (mean ± SD) | 84.2 ± 12.0 | 84.8 ± 14.5 | 0.674 |
| Hypertension, N (%) | 114 (58.8) | 105 (52.8) | 0.264 |
Fig. 2Represents distribution of blood pressure (SBP & DBP) during follow up.
Change (95% confidence interval) in blood pressure.
| Clinical parameters | Non intervention | Intervention | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intention to treat analysis | |||
| SBP, mmHg at final follow up | 141.1 (138.9–143.3) | 134.6 (132.5–136.8) | 0.000 |
| DBP, mmHg at final follow up | 83.3 (82.1–84.5) | 77.6 (76.4–78.8) | 0.000 |
| Difference in SBP, mmHg (Final follow up – Baseline value) | −1.1 (−2.2 to 2.2) | −6.4 (−8.6 to −4.2) | 0.000 |
| Difference in DBP, mmHg (Final follow up – Baseline value) | −1.0 (−2.3 to 0.2) | −6.9 (−8.1 to −5.7) | 0.000 |
| Per protocol analysis | |||
| SBP, mmHg at final follow up | 141.9 (139.6–144.3) | 133.6 (131.1–136.0) | 0.000 |
| DBP, mmHg at final follow up | 83.6 (82.3–84.9) | 77.2 (75.8–78.6) | 0.000 |
| Difference in SBP, mmHg (Final follow up – Baseline value) | 0.2 (−2.2 to 2.6) | −8.2 (−10.6 to −5.7) | 0.000 |
| Difference in DBP, mmHg (Final follow up – Baseline value) | −1.2 (−2.5 to 0.1) | −7.6 (−8.1 to −6.2) | 0.000 |
Adjusted for age, sex and baseline blood pressure, smoking, physical activity and alcohol consumption.