| Literature DB >> 31203245 |
Yuan Ma1,2, Xiangxian Feng3, Jun Ma4, Feng J He5, Haijun Wang4, Jing Zhang6, Wuxiang Xie7, Tao Wu6, Yunjian Yin8, Jianhui Yuan3, Graham A MacGregor5, Yangfeng Wu1,6,7.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Healthy behaviour changes, such as reducing salt intake, are important to prevent lifestyle-related diseases. Social environment is a major challenge to achieve such behaviours, but the explicit mechanisms remain largely unknown. We investigated whether social networks of children were associated with their behaviours to reduce salt intake.Entities:
Keywords: behaviour change; hypertension; salt reduction; social networks; social support
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31203245 PMCID: PMC6589018 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028126
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Figure 1School-EduSalt network study design.
Participant characteristics
| Characteristics | All (n=603) |
| Age (years) | 11.2±0.6 |
| Boy, n (%) | 303 (50.2) |
| Family support, n (%) | |
| Family members not supporting salt reduction (number) | |
| ≥3 | 72 (12.0) |
| 2 | 91 (15.1) |
| 1 | 160 (26.6) |
| 0 | 279 (46.3) |
| Family members not supporting salt reduction (roles)* | |
| None | 279 (46.3) |
| Father | 154 (25.6) |
| Mother | 79 (13.1) |
| Grandmother | 90 (14.9) |
| Grandfather | 74 (12.3) |
| Peer network measures, n (%) | |
| Network size (No of children within the class)† | 43±16 |
| Network density (in %)† | 11±7 |
| No of friends | 4 (2–5) |
| Normalised degree centrality (in %)‡ | 24 (12–43) |
| Peer exposure (score on salt-reduction behaviours) | 0.04 (−0.70 to 0.80) |
| Teacher engagement, n (%) | |
| Full | 311 (51.6) |
| Partial | 292 (48.4) |
Data are shown in the format of mean±SD, median (P25–P75) and n (%).
*The overall proportion exceeded 100% as there were cases in which two or more family members did not support salt reduction, that is, these categories were not mutually exclusive.
†Measures at cluster (class) level. Density of network is the total number of friendship connections (ties) divided by the total possible number of friendship ties within the same class.
‡Normalised degree centrality is the number of friends within the class divided by the size of class.
Description of children’s salt-reduction behaviours
| Questions related to salt reduction | All |
| Q1. Frequency of eating pickles, N (%) | |
| Almost never (=3) | 446 (74.0) |
| 1~3 days/week (=2) | 147 (24.3) |
| ≥3 days/week (=1) | 10 (1.7) |
| Q2. Frequency of eating high-salt snacks, N (%) | |
| Almost never (=3) | 166 (27.6) |
| 1~3 days/week (=2) | 358 (59.3) |
| ≥3 days/week (=1) | 78 (13.0) |
| Q3. Family’s action on salt reduction, N (%) | |
| Have been reducing salt (=3) | 401 (66.6) |
| Used to (=2) | 172 (28.6) |
| Never (=1) | 29 (4.8) |
| Sum of Q1–Q3 scores, N (%) | |
| 7–9 | 95 (15.8) |
| 4–6 | 482 (80.2) |
| 0–3 | 24 (4.0) |
| SRB score (the sum of standardised scores) (mean±SD) | 0±1.9 |
Figure 2Change in salt intake measured by 24-hour urinary sodium across the quantiles of SRB score in children.
Association of SRB score with social network measures among all 603 children
| Network measures | Regression coefficient (95% CI)* | P value |
| Family support | ||
| Family member not supporting salt reduction (number)† | ||
| ≥3 | −1.1 (−1.6 to −0.6) | <0.0001 |
| 2 | −1.0 (−1.4 to −0.5) | <0.0001 |
| 1 | −0.6 (−0.9 to −0.2) | 0.003 |
| 0 | Reference | − |
| Family member not supporting salt reduction (roles) | ||
| Father | −1.3 (−1.6 to −0.9) | <0.0001 |
| Mother | −1.2 (−1.8 to −0.6) | 0.002 |
| Grandmother | −0.7 (−1.4 to −0.1) | 0.024 |
| Grandfather | −0.8 (−1.5 to 0.02) | 0.06 |
| None | Reference | – |
| Peer network measures | ||
| Network size (No of children within the class) | −0.01 (−0.02 to −0.002) | 0.026 |
| Network density (in %) | 0.94 (0.06 to 1.82) | 0.036 |
| Normalised degree centrality (in %) | 0.5 (0.01 to 0.99) | 0.044 |
| Peer exposure (score on salt-reduction behaviours) | 0.07 (−0.07 to 0.20) | 0.205 |
| Teachers’ engagement | ||
| Partial | −0.33 (−0.64 to −0.01) | 0.043 |
| Full | Reference | - |
| Joint association | ||
| Family support (partial versus full)‡ | −0.82 (−1.13 to −0.52) | <0.0001 |
| Peer network (normalised degree centrality) | 0.37 (−0.11 to 0.85) | 0.13 |
| Teacher engagement (partial versus full) | −0.25 (−0.56 to 0.07) | 0.20 |
*Linear regression coefficients for corresponding network measures in the mixed models on SRB score.
†P for trend <0.0001.
‡Full support was defined as all family members supporting salt reduction. Partial support was defined as at least one family member not supporting salt reduction.
Figure 3Visualisation of peer networks in the 14 intervention schools.