Rebecca C Woodruff1,2, Katherine J Overwyk1,3, Mary E Cogswell1, Jing Fang1, Sandra L Jackson1. 1. Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy NE, Chamblee, GA 30341, USA. 2. Epidemic Intelligence Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. 3. IHRC, Inc., Atlanta, GA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Population reductions in Na intake could prevent hypertension, and current guidelines recommend that clinicians advise patients to reduce intake. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of taking action and receiving advice from a health professional to reduce Na intake in ten US jurisdictions, including the first-ever data in New York state and Guam. DESIGN: Weighted prevalence and 95 % CI overall and by location, demographic group, health status and receipt of provider advice using self-reported data from the 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System optional Na module. SETTING: Seven states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 18 years. RESULTS: Overall, 53·6 % (95 % CI 52·7, 54·5) of adults reported taking action to reduce Na intake, including 54·8 % (95 % CI 52·8, 56·7) in New York and 61·2 % (95 % CI 57·6, 64·7) in Guam. Prevalence varied by demographic and health characteristic and was higher among adults who reported having hypertension (72·5 %; 95 % CI 71·2, 73·7) v. those who did not report having hypertension (43·9 %; 95 % CI 42·7, 45·0). Among those who reported receiving Na reduction advice from a health professional, 82·6 % (95 % CI 81·3, 83·9) reported action v. 44·4 % (95 % CI 43·4, 45·5) among those who did not receive advice. However, only 24·0 % (95 % CI 23·3, 24·7) of adults reported receiving advice from a health professional to reduce Na intake. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of adults report taking action to reduce Na intake. Results highlight an opportunity to increase Na reduction advice from health professionals during clinical visits to better align with existing guidelines.
OBJECTIVE: Population reductions in Na intake could prevent hypertension, and current guidelines recommend that clinicians advise patients to reduce intake. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of taking action and receiving advice from a health professional to reduce Na intake in ten US jurisdictions, including the first-ever data in New York state and Guam. DESIGN: Weighted prevalence and 95 % CI overall and by location, demographic group, health status and receipt of provider advice using self-reported data from the 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System optional Na module. SETTING: Seven states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 18 years. RESULTS: Overall, 53·6 % (95 % CI 52·7, 54·5) of adults reported taking action to reduce Na intake, including 54·8 % (95 % CI 52·8, 56·7) in New York and 61·2 % (95 % CI 57·6, 64·7) in Guam. Prevalence varied by demographic and health characteristic and was higher among adults who reported having hypertension (72·5 %; 95 % CI 71·2, 73·7) v. those who did not report having hypertension (43·9 %; 95 % CI 42·7, 45·0). Among those who reported receiving Na reduction advice from a health professional, 82·6 % (95 % CI 81·3, 83·9) reported action v. 44·4 % (95 % CI 43·4, 45·5) among those who did not receive advice. However, only 24·0 % (95 % CI 23·3, 24·7) of adults reported receiving advice from a health professional to reduce Na intake. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of adults report taking action to reduce Na intake. Results highlight an opportunity to increase Na reduction advice from health professionals during clinical visits to better align with existing guidelines.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adults; Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System; Diet; Physician−Patient relations; Prevalence; Sodium; United States
Authors: Amaka V Anekwe; Megan Lent; Shannon M Farley; Kimberly Kessler; Maura O Kennelly; Sonia Y Angell Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Mary E Cogswell; Catherine M Loria; Ana L Terry; Lixia Zhao; Chia-Yih Wang; Te-Ching Chen; Jacqueline D Wright; Christine M Pfeiffer; Robert Merritt; Claudia S Moy; Lawrence J Appel Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Paul K Whelton; Robert M Carey; Wilbert S Aronow; Donald E Casey; Karen J Collins; Cheryl Dennison Himmelfarb; Sondra M DePalma; Samuel Gidding; Kenneth A Jamerson; Daniel W Jones; Eric J MacLaughlin; Paul Muntner; Bruce Ovbiagele; Sidney C Smith; Crystal C Spencer; Randall S Stafford; Sandra J Taler; Randal J Thomas; Kim A Williams; Jeff D Williamson; Jackson T Wright Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-11-13 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Steven P Dehmer; Mary E Cogswell; Matthew D Ritchey; Yuling Hong; Michael V Maciosek; Amy B LaFrance; Kakoli Roy Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Lisa J Harnack; Mary E Cogswell; James M Shikany; Christopher D Gardner; Cathleen Gillespie; Catherine M Loria; Xia Zhou; Keming Yuan; Lyn M Steffen Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-05-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Zerleen S Quader; Mary E Cogswell; Jing Fang; Sallyann M Coleman King; Robert K Merritt Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-05-22 Impact factor: 3.240