Abstract
Background: Hypertension, the most significant risk factor for cardiovascular disease, is an increasing contributor to global health burden, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) such as India. While the rates of hypertension awareness, treatment, and control in India have been reported in several studies, the factors associated with these rates are less well-understood. Existing studies are predominantly cross-sectional, and the factors examined are limited. Understanding the predictors associated with these rates, using more rigorous study designs, is crucial for the development of strategies to improve hypertension management.
Aims: To examine a range of factors associated with hypertension awareness, treatment, and control using both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses.
Methods: Data was derived from a population-based sample of 1,710 participants from Kerala, aged 30–60 years. We examined a comprehensive range of factors, including demographic, behavioral factors, anthropometric, clinical measures, psychosocial factors and healthcare utilization. Multilevel mixed effects logistic regression was used for both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses (repeated measures for all variables across 2 years) to determine the factors associated with awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension.
Results: A total of 467 (27.3%) participants had hypertension at baseline. Among those, the rates of awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension were 54.4, 25.5, and 36.4%, respectively. Being male (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.14–0.53) and consumption of alcohol (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31–0.80) were significant predictors of poorly controlled hypertension (longitudinal analysis). Depression (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.15–3.61) and fair-to-poor self-perceived health status (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.15–3.04) were associated with increased hypertension awareness, whereas anxiety (OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.04–3.71) was associated with increased hypertension treatment (cross-sectional analysis). Seeking outpatient service in the past 4 weeks was associated with higher awareness (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.27–2.87), treatment (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.20–2.50) and control (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.37–2.80) (longitudinal analysis).
Conclusion: Our findings suggest the importance of considering psychosocial factors and better engagement with health services in hypertension management, as well as giving more attention to body fat control and largely male-related behaviors such as alcohol consumption, taking into account of some Indian specific attributes.
Introduction
Hypertension remains one of the most important modifiable risk factors for the morbidity and mortality associated with cardiovascular disease (). While hypertension control has improved over the past few decades globally, the prevalence has increased in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with low proportions of hypertension awareness, treatment, and control (). In India, there has been a big increase in the prevalence of hypertension over the past two decades (23–42.2% in urban and 11.2–28.9% in rural areas), with no substantial improvement in the rates of hypertension awareness, treatment, and control ().
Improved awareness and treatment of hypertension can lead to improved control of hypertension (, ). Understanding which factors are associated with these rates is very important for developing appropriate strategies to improve hypertension control. Studies conducted in LMICs have investigated demographic and behavioral factors that can be associated with hypertension awareness, treatment, and control. Some of these studies suggest that, being a female, overweight or obese, non-smoker and non-drinker are associated with higher rates of hypertension awareness and/or treatment or control (, ). Others have found higher waist-to-height ratio and having co-morbidities (e.g., diabetes and other chronic conditions) are associated with higher rates of hypertension awareness or treatment (); physical inactivity was associated with higher levels of treatment, and higher percent of body fat was associated with higher level of awareness, treatment, and control (). However, all these studies were cross-sectional; further prospective studies are needed to determine the predictors of these important rates in hypertension management. In addition, investigating other factors in addition to demographic and behavioral factors in relation to hypertension awareness, treatment, and control may also be important to help manage hypertension ().
There are also psychosocial factors such as anxiety and depression that have been shown to be associated with the development/worsening of hypertension (, ), yet, they haven't been extensively explored in relation to awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension. Similarly, health-related quality of life has been shown to be poor in patients with hypertension (), but it is not clear how it can be important in relation to hypertension awareness, treatment, and control. Social support, including family and friends' ties, was shown to be associated with less uncontrolled hypertension (). On the other hand, health service utilization factors, including easy access to health services and regular check of BP, were both found to be associated with higher hypertension awareness (). Taken together, more scrutiny is needed to further examine the role of a wider range of factors that includes not only demographic and behavioral factors, but also psychosocial factors in relation to hypertension awareness, treatment, and control.
In India, several studies have investigated the prevalence of hypertension awareness, treatment, and control (–). Factors associated with these rates were only explored in cross-sectional studies and also, only a limited number of potential factors were investigated (). Considering all potential factors from different aspects mentioned above in relation to hypertension awareness, treatment, and control, not only in cross-sectional, but also in longitudinal studies, could enhance our understanding of the determinants of these rates and how to improve hypertension control in the population. This will help establish stronger evidence-based strategies to reduce the burden of cardiovascular diseases in India and other LMICs.
Our team has established a cohort in Kerala India in 2013, to implement and evaluate a community-based diabetes prevention [Kerala Diabetes Prevention Program (K-DPP)] (). Despite being an intervention trial, comprehensive information was collected on all study participants, including socio-demographic measures, behavioral measures, psychosocial measures, clinical and biochemical measures, as well as measures of health utilization. This has enabled us to examine a range of factors that could be associated with hypertension awareness, treatment, and control in a population representative sample. Moreover, three repeated measures at baseline, 12 and 24-months means that it is possible to examine such associations longitudinally in order to increase the understanding of the casual relationships between a diverse range of factors and hypertension awareness, treatment, and control.
Therefore, the current study aimed to examine a range of predictors of hypertension awareness, treatment, and control, using both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses in the cohort of K-DPP. The predictors to examine include demographic variables, behavioral factors, anthropometric and clinical measures, psychosocial factors (i.e., anxiety, depression, chronic stress, social support, and health-related life quality) and measures of health utilization.
Materials and Methods
Study Participants
Study participants in this study were a broadly representative, population-based sample from the general population in Kerala, aged from 30 to 60 years, collected in 2013 (). The detailed information on study design and participants screening and recruitment have been previously published (, ). Detailed recruitment information is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1
After first step of excluding IDRS <60 (n = 1,057) and those who were not willing to have OGTT (n = 320), 1,209 participants underwent the OGTT to assess the presence of diabetes. A total of 1,007 participants who were free of diabetes at baseline were included in the K-DPP trial (intervention group 500, control group 507). For those who with IDRS <60 (n = 1,057), a random selection of participants (n = 501) were recruited. All measures for these 501 participants were done as were for the trial population. For the purpose of this study, to include more general population, we included K-DPP trial participants (n = 1,007), those who had diabetes at baseline (n = 202), and those who with IDRS <60 at baseline (randomly selected n = 501), resulting in a total study sample of 1,710 at baseline for analysis (Figure 1).
Data Collection and Measurements
A range of variables were measured including socio-demographic measures, behavior measures, clinical measures, psychosocial measure and cost-effective measures, which have been published previously (
We defined hypertension as mean systolic BP (average of second and third measures) ≥ 140 mmHg or diastolic BP ≥90 mmHg based on the JNC 8 classification of hypertension (
Behavioral Factors
Tobacco use was assessed by asking the question “Did you use any of the following tobacco products (smoking: cigarettes, bidis, cigars and hookah; smokeless: snuff, betel with tobacco, khaini and gutka) in the last 30 days?” Fruits and vegetable intake were assessed using Food Frequency Questionnaire adapted from PROLIFE study (
Psychosocial Factors
Anxiety was measured using the General Anxiety Disorder scale (
Social support was measured by the ENRICHED social support scale (
Health Utilization
Health utilization was assessed by asking the questions “Did you have any out-patient services during the past 4 weeks (including specialist, community health services, nurses etc.) and “Did you have any in-patient services in the last 1 year?”
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics were used to present participant characteristics in general and by hypertension awareness, treatment, and control. Mean (SD) and proportions (%) were used to summarize for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Chi-square test was used to compare difference between proportions, and ANOVA was used to compare differences in continuous variables between groups. Multilevel mixed logistic regression (
Results
In total, there were 1,710 participants included in this study at baseline (62% male, mean age 45 years, SD 7.9 years). The prevalence of hypertension was 27.3% (n = 467, including 170 with controlled hypertension) at baseline. Characteristics of participants with hypertension at baseline (n = 467) were presented in Table 1. The prevalence of hypertension awareness, treatment, and control is presented in Table 2. In brief, among all hypertensive participants (n = 467), 54.4% were aware of their hypertension [indicating 45.6% (213 participants) were newly diagnosed with hypertension], 25.5% were receiving treatment and 36.4% had their BP controlled at baseline. Among those who were aware of their hypertension, about 47% were receiving treatment, and among those with treatment, about 69% had their BP controlled. Among those with uncontrolled hypertension (n = 297), 72.5, 20.9, and 7.1% had stage 1, stage 2, and stage 3 hypertension, respectively.
Table 1
| Factors | n (%) |
|---|---|
| Demographic factors | |
| Age (years), mean (SD) | 47.6 (8.0) |
| Men | 308 (66.0) |
| Marital status, n (%) | |
| Married | 451 (96.6) |
| Not married (separated/ divorced/widowed/never married) | 16 (3.4) |
| Education, n (%) | |
| Up to primary school | 142 (30.4) |
| Secondary school | 263 (56.3) |
| Tertiary and above | 62 (13.3) |
| Occupation, n (%) | |
| Skilled/unskilled | 348 (74.5) |
| Homemaker/unemployed/retired | 119 (25.5) |
| Behavioral factors | |
| Leisure-time physical activity, n (%) | |
| Inactive | 375 (80.3) |
| Active | 92 (19.7) |
| Fruits and vegetable servingsa, n (%) | |
| ≥5 servings per day | 317 (68.5) |
| <5 servings per day | 146 (31.5) |
| Alcohol consumption, n (%) | 141 (30.2) |
| Tobacco useb, n (%) | 118 (25.3) |
| Anthropometric measures | |
| BMI categoriesc, n (%) | |
| Normal weight (<23 kg/m2) | 125 (26.8) |
| Overweight (≥23.0 and <25 kg/m2) | 115 (24.7) |
| Obese (≥25 kg/m2) | 226 (48.5) |
| Waist circumference in cm, mean (SD) | 89.6 (9.6) |
| Fat percent (%), mean (SD) | 29.1 (8.5) |
| Psychosocial factors | |
| Anxietyd, n (%) | |
| No | 347 (74.8) |
| Yes | 117 (25.2) |
| Depressione, n (%) | |
| No | 314 (69.2) |
| Yes | 140 (30.8) |
| Chronic stressf, n (%) | |
| None | 158 (35.7) |
| Low | 160 (36.3) |
| High | 125 (28.2) |
| Self-perceived health statusf, n (%) | |
| Good-excellent | 163 (34.9) |
| Fair-poor | 304 (65.1) |
| Social support scoreg, n (%) | 23.6 (4.8) |
| Clinical measures | |
| Family history of CVD | 116 (24.8) |
| Systolic BP in mmHg, mean (SD) | 141.1 (19.5) |
| Diastolic BP in mmHg, mean (SD) | 85.6 (12.5) |
| Fasting plasma glucose (mmol/L), mean (SD) | 6.7 (2.3) |
| Two-hour plasma glucose (mmol/L), mean (SD) | 7.9 (4.5) |
| Total cholesterol (mmol/l), mean (SD) | 227.1 (42.7) |
| LDL cholesterol (mmol/l), mean (SD) | 159.6 (36.9) |
| Health utilization | |
| Outpatient services in the last 4 weeks | 132 (28.3) |
Characteristics of participants with hypertension at baseline (n = 467).
One serving of fruit equals a medium-sized fruit or two small-sized fruits or half a glass of fruit juice or a bowl of grapes. One serving of vegetables (including tubers) equals 80 g.
Tobacco use include smoke and smokeless (chewing tobacco and snuff) in the past 30 days.
BMI was categorized according to the Indian guideline (
Anxiety was measured using the General Anxiety Disorder scale (
Depression was measured using Patient Health Questionnaire-9 amended in line with CURES-65 study (
Self-perceived health status was measured using Short Form-36 (
Social support was measured by the ENRICHED social support scale (
SD, standard deviation; BMI, body mass index; Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Table 2
| Total (n = 467) | Men (n = 308) | Women (n = 159) | P-valueb | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Awareness, n(%) | 254 (54.4) | 144 (46.8) | 110 (69.2) | 0.000 |
| Treatment, n(%) | ||||
| Among those were aware | 119 (46.9) | 63 (43.8) | 56 (50.9) | 0.257 |
| Among all cases | 119 (25.5) | 63 (20.5) | 56 (35.2) | 0.001 |
| Control, n(%) | ||||
| Among those who were treatedc | 82 (68.9) | 40 (63.5) | 42 (75) | 0.176 |
| Among those with no treatmentd | 88 (25.3) | 43 (17.6) | 45 (43.7) | 0.000 |
| Among all cases | 170 (36.4) | 83 (26.9) | 87 (54.7) | 0.000 |
Awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension among individuals with hypertension by sex at baseline (n = 467)a.
Data shown was among those with hypertension, defined as either systolic BP ≥ 140 mmHg or diastolic BP ≥ 90 mmHg or having anti-hypertension drugs, or self-reported having hypertension (n = 467).
P-values are based on Chi square test between men and women.
There were 119 participants were treated (63 men and 56 women).
There were 348 participants were hypertensive but not receiving treatment (245 men and 103 women).
There was a significant difference in hypertension awareness, treatment, and control by sex. On average, women had better hypertension management, compared to men. Even among those who had controlled hypertension but not on treatment, women were more than twice as likely to have their hypertension controlled, as compared to men (43.7 vs. 17.6%) (Table 2). The trends of these rates over 2 years based on repeated measures (n = 1,007) are presented in Figure 2. In brief, there was no change in the prevalence of hypertension over 2 years. However, there was a significant improvement in hypertension awareness (54% at baseline, 66% at year 1 and 70% at year 2, p for trend <0.001). Although no significant trends found for the other rates across 2 years, there was a significant increase in treatment and control rates from baseline to year 1 (27.4–34.4% and 38–42.6%, respectively). There was a modest increase of these rates from year 1 to year 2, without significant differences (Figure 2).
Figure 2

Trends of prevalence of hypertension awareness, treatment and control cross 2 years. The data was obtained from the K-DPP participants with repeated measures. There were 1,007 participants at baseline, 981 at year 1 and 962 at year 2. For hypertension, there were 274 at baseline, 265 at year 1 and 260 at year 2. The prevalence of awareness, treatment, and control were calculated among those who were hypertensive per definition at each time point.
Baseline characteristics of hypertensive participants by hypertension awareness, treatment, and control are shown in Table 3. Men, those who did skilled/unskilled jobs, and who consumed alcohol were more likely to be unaware of their hypertension, and less likely to be receiving treatment or to have their BP controlled. On the other hand, those who with higher body fat, depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, chronic stress, poor to fair self-perceived health status and those who sought outpatient service in the last 4 weeks, were more likely to be aware and receive treatment and control their hypertension. Surprisingly, participants with higher social support were less likely to have their hypertension controlled as compared to those with lower level of social support.
Table 3
| Awarenessb | Treatmentc | Controld | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes (n = 254) | No (n = 213) | p-value | Yes (n = 119) | No (n = 348) | p-value | Yes (n = 170) | No (n = 297) | p-value | |
| Demographic factors | |||||||||
| Age (years), mean (SD) | 47.4 (8.2) | 47.7 (7.9) | 0.76 | 49.1 (8.0) | 47.0 (8.0) | 0.017 | 47.0 (8.2) | 47.9 (7.9) | 0.24 |
| Men, n (%) | 144 (56.7) | 164 (77.0) | <0.001 | 63 (52.9) | 245 (70.4) | <0.001 | 83 (48.8) | 225 (75.8) | <0.001 |
| Marital status, n (%) | 0.88 | 0.53 | 0.93 | ||||||
| Married | 245 (96.5) | 206 (96.7) | 116 (97.5) | 335 (96.3) | 164 (96.5) | 287 (96.6) | |||
| Not married (separated/divorced/widowed/ never married) | 9 (3.5) | 7 (3.3) | 3 (2.5) | 13 (3.7) | 6 (3.5) | 10 (3.4) | |||
| Education, n (%) | 0.52 | 0.75 | 0.29 | ||||||
| Up to primary school | 76 (29.9) | 66 (31.0) | 33 (27.7) | 109 (31.3) | 54 (31.8) | 88 (29.6) | |||
| Secondary school | 148 (58.3) | 115 (54.0) | 69 (58.0) | 194 (55.7) | 99 (58.2) | 164 (55.2) | |||
| Tertiary and above | 30 (11.8) | 32 (15.0) | 17 (14.3) | 45 (12.9) | 17 (10.0) | 45 (15.2) | |||
| Occupation, n (%) | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||||
| Skilled/unskilled | 170 (66.9) | 178 (83.6) | 70 (58.8) | 278 (79.9) | 109 (64.1) | 239 (80.5) | |||
| Homemaker/unemployed/retired | 84 (33.1) | 35 (16.4) | 49 (41.2) | 70 (20.1) | 53 (31.2) | 50 (16.8) | |||
| Behavioral factors | |||||||||
| Leisure time physical active, n (%) | 43 (16.9) | 49 (23.0) | 0.10 | 19 (16.0) | 73 (21.0) | 0.24 | 26 (15.3) | 66 (22.2) | 0.070 |
| ≥5 servings of vegetables and fruits/per daye, n (%) | 73 (29.0) | 73 (34.6) | 0.19 | 32 (27.1) | 114 (33.0) | 0.23 | |||
| Alcohol consumption, n (%) | 60 (23.6) | 81 (38.0) | <0.001 | 22 (18.5) | 119 (34.2) | 0.001 | 30 (17.6) | 111 (37.4) | <0.001 |
| Current tobacco usef, n (%) | 56 (22.0) | 62 (29.1) | 0.080 | 21 (17.6) | 97 (27.9) | 0.027 | 37 (21.8) | 81 (27.3) | 0.19 |
| Anthropometrics | |||||||||
| Waist circumference (cm), mean (SD) | 89.5 (10.3) | 89.7 (8.7) | 0.84 | 89.8 (10.3) | 89.5 (9.3) | 0.77 | 88.7 (10.6) | 90.1 (8.9) | 0.15 |
| BMI categoriesg, n (%) | 0.072 | 0.038 | 0.039 | ||||||
| Normal weight (<23 kg/m2) | 61 (24.1) | 64 (30.0) | 29 (24.4) | 96 (27.7) | 42 (24.7) | 83 (28.0) | |||
| Overweight (≥23.0 and <25 kg/m2) | 57 (22.5) | 58 (27.2) | 21 (17.6) | 94 (27.1) | 33 (19.4) | 82 (27.7) | |||
| Obese (≥25 kg/m2) | 135 (53.4) | 91 (42.7) | 69 (58.0) | 157 (45.2) | 95 (55.9) | 131 (44.3) | |||
| Body fat percent (%), mean (SD) | 30.5 (8.9) | 27.4 (7.8) | <0.001 | 31.4 (9.3) | 28.3 (8.1) | <0.001 | 31.3 (9.0) | 27.8 (8.0) | <0.001 |
| Psychosocial factors | |||||||||
| Anxietyh, n (%) | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||||
| No | 169 (67.1) | 178 (84.0) | 70 (59.3) | 277 (80.1) | 107 (63.7) | 240 (81.1) | |||
| Yes (mild-severe) | 83 (32.9) | 34 (16.0) | 48 (40.7) | 69 (19.9) | 61 (36.3) | 56 (18.9) | |||
| Depressioni, n (%) | <0.001 | <0.001 | |||||||
| No | 145 (58.7) | 169 (81.6) | 62 (54.9) | 252 (73.9) | 99 (60.7) | 215 (73.9) | 0.004 | ||
| Yes (mild-severe) | 102 (41.3) | 38 (18.4) | 51 (45.1) | 89 (26.1) | 64 (39.3) | 76 (26.1) | |||
| Chronic stressj, n (%) | 0.004 | 0.017 | 0.10 | ||||||
| None | 76 (31.1) | 82 (41.2) | 35 (30.7) | 123 (37.4) | 49 (30.1) | 109 (38.9) | |||
| Low | 84 (34.4) | 76 (38.2) | 35 (30.7) | 125 (38.0) | 60 (36.8) | 100 (35.7) | |||
| High | 84 (34.4) | 41 (20.6) | 44 (38.6) | 81 (24.6) | 54 (33.1) | 71 (25.4) | |||
| Self-perceived health statusk, n (%) | <0.001 | 0.15 | 0.022 | ||||||
| Good-excellent | 71 (28.0) | 92 (43.2) | 35 (29.4) | 128 (36.8) | 48 (28.2) | 115 (38.7) | |||
| Poor-fair | 183 (72) | 121 (56.8) | 84 (70.6) | 220 (63.2) | 122 (71.8) | 182 (61.3) | |||
| Social support scorel, mean (SD) | 23.4 (4.9) | 23.9 (4.7) | 0.21 | 23.6 (4.5) | 23.6 (4.9) | 0.94 | 22.9 (5.0) | 24.1 (4.6) | 0.011 |
| Clinical measures | |||||||||
| Family history of CVD, n (%) | 72 (28.3) | 44 (20.7) | 0.055 | 32 (26.9) | 84 (24.1) | 0.55 | 49 (28.8) | 67 (22.6) | 0.13 |
| Systolic BP (mmHg), mean (SD) | 133.8 (21.0) | 149.8 (13.0) | <0.001 | 134.4 (18.9) | 143.3 (19.2) | <0.001 | 122.2 (10.9) | 151.9 (14.5) | <0.001 |
| Diastolic BP (mmHg), mean (SD) | 81.8 (13.4) | 90.2 (9.6) | <0.001 | 81.3 (12.3) | 87.1 (12.2) | <0.001 | 74.9 (8.0) | 91.8 (10.3) | <0.001 |
| Fasting plasma glucose (mmol/L), mean (SD) | 6.7 (2.2) | 6.8 (2.3) | 0.59 | 6.8 (2.4) | 6.7 (2.2) | 0.46 | 6.5 (1.8) | 6.9 (2.5) | 0.065 |
| Two-hour plasma glucose (mmol/L), median (SD) | 7.8 (4.3) | 8.0 (4.6) | 0.49 | 8.3 (4.7) | 7.8 (4.4) | 0.30 | 7.6 (4.0) | 8.1 (4.7) | 0.32 |
| Total cholesterol (mg/dl), mean (SD) | 224.3 (40.7) | 230.5 (45.0) | 0.15 | 220.8 (41.7) | 229.2 (43.0) | 0.095 | 219.7 (41.7) | 231.5 (42.8) | 0.008 |
| LDL cholesterol (mg/dl), mean (SD) | 158.1 (36.5) | 161.4 (37.3) | 0.38 | 155.4 (38.8) | 161.0 (36.2) | 0.20 | 154.6 (37.9) | 162.6 (36.0) | 0.040 |
| Health utilization | |||||||||
| Outpatient service within last 4 wks, n (%) | 102 (40.2) | 30 (14.1) | <0.001 | 53 (44.5) | 79 (22.7) | <0.001 | 75 (44.1) | 57 (19.2) | <0.001 |
Characteristics of participants by hypertension awareness, treatment, and control groups among those with hypertension at baseline (n = 467)a.
Hypertension was defined as mean systolic BP ≥ 140 mmHg or diastolic BP ≥ 90 mmHg based on the JNC 7 classification of hypertension, or currently under anti-hypertensive medication or self-reported hypertension.
Awareness was defined as self-reported previous diagnosis of hypertension by a physician among those with hypertension (refer to #a).
Treatment was defined as currently prescribed anti-hypertension medication.
Controlled was defined as systolic BP <140 mmHg and diastolic BP <90 mmHg among those hypertensive participants (refer to #a).
One serving of fruit equals a medium-sized fruit or two small-sized fruits or half a glass of fruit juice or a bowl of grapes. One serving of vegetables (including tubers) equals 80 g.
Tobacco use include smoke and smokeless (chewing tobacco and snuff) in the past 30 days.
BMI was categorized according to the Indian guideline (
Anxiety was measured using the General Anxiety Disorder scale (
Depression was measured using Patient Health Questionnaire-9 amended in line with CURES-65 study (
Chronic stress was measured by Chronic stress scale used in MESA study (
Self-perceived health status was measured using Short Form-36 (
Social support was measured by the ENRICHED social support scale (
SD, standard deviation; BMI, body mass index; Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
The cross-sectional results of correlates of hypertension awareness, treatment, and control are presented in Table 4. Participants with higher age (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.94–0.99) and being men (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14–0.83) were less likely to have their hypertension controlled. Homemakers/unemployed/retired (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.33–5.40) were more likely to be receiving hypertension treatment. Alcohol consumption (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.27–0.87) were associated with uncontrolled hypertension. Psychosocial factors such as depression (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.15–3.61) and fair to poor self-perceived health status (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.15–3.04) were associated with increased hypertension awareness, whereas anxiety (OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.04–3.71) was associated with increased hypertension treatment. Social support (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90–1.00) was associated with uncontrolled hypertension. Seeking outpatient service within last 4 weeks was consistently associated with hypertension awareness (OR 3.78, 95% CI 2.19–6.53), treatment (OR 2.69, 95% CI 1.55–4.65), and control (OR 3.67, 95% CI 2.23–6.03).
Table 4
| Awareness | Treatment | Control | |
|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |
| Demographic factors | |||
| Age (years) | 0.99 (0.96, 1.02) | 1.03 (0.10, 1.06) | 0.96 (0.94, 0.99) |
| Men | 0.77 (0.30, 1.93) | 2.31 (0.85, 6.31) | 0.34 (0.14, 0.83) |
| Occupation | |||
| Skilled/unskilled | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Homemaker/ unemployed/ retired | 1.81 (0.88, 3.71) | 2.67 (1.33, 5.40) | 1.25 (0.67, 2.34) |
| Behavioral factors | |||
| Alcohol consumption | |||
| No | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes | 0.74 (0.44, 1.29) | 0.57 (0.28, 1.14) | 0.49 (0.27, 0.87) |
| Tobacco use | |||
| No | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Yes | – | 0.66 (0.30, 1.46) | – |
| Body fat percent | 1.01 (0.97, 1.06) | 1.03 (0.98, 1.08) | 0.98 (0.94, 1.02) |
| Psychosocial factors | |||
| Anxiety | |||
| No | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes (mild-severe) | 1.08 (0.58, 2.03) | 1.97 (1.04, 3.71) | 1.63 (0.93, 2.86) |
| Depression | |||
| No | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes (mild-severe) | 2.04 (1.15, 3.61) | 1.30 (0.72, 2.35) | 0.92 (0.54, 1.56) |
| Chronic stress | |||
| None | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Low | 0.99 (0.59, 1.68) | 0.69 (0.38, 1.28) | – |
| High | 1.10 (0.59, 2.05) | 0.93 (0.47, 1.82) | – |
| Self-perceived health status | |||
| Good-excellent | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Fair-poor | 1.87 (1.15, 3.04) | – | 1.25 (0.77, 2.01) |
| Social support score | – | – | 0.95 (0.90, 1.00) |
| Heath utilization | |||
| Outpatient service within last 4 weeks | |||
| No | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes | 3.78 (2.19, 6.53) | 2.69 (1.55, 4.65) | 3.67 (2.23, 6.03) |
Factors associated with hypertension awareness, treatment, and control at baseline (cross-sectional analysis among hypertensive participants, n = 467)a.
Results obtained from multi-level mixed logistic regression model, considering (cluster as level 2) among hypertensive participants at baseline.
Bold values indicate statistically significant at p < 0.05.
Variables selected in each model was based on the results of univariate analyses, some variables were included in one model but not in others, therefore represented as “–.”
Longitudinal associations between these factors and hypertension awareness, treatment, and control revealed similar results (Table 5), including (1) being homemakers/unemployed/retired (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.25–3.47) were more likely to receive treatment; (2) those who consumed alcohol (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31–0.80) was associated with uncontrolled hypertension; (3) fair to poor self-perceived health status (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.15–3.04) were associated with increased hypertension awareness; (4) seeking outpatient service within last for weeks was consistently associated with better hypertension awareness (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.27–2.87), treatment (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.20–2.50) and control (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.37–2.80). Differently, body fat percent was associated with slightly increased hypertension treatment (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.00–1.08) and lower hypertension control (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94–1.00). No association was found between social support and hypertension control.
Table 5
| Awareness | Treatment | Control | |
|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |
| Demographic factors | |||
| Age (years) | 0.97 (0.95, 1.00) | 1.04 (1.01, 1.06) | 0.98 (0.96, 1.00) |
| Men | 0.70 (0.33, 1.47) | 1.77 (0.86, 3.63) | 0.27 (0.14, 0.53) |
| Occupation | |||
| Skilled/unskilled | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Homemaker/ unemployed/ retired | 1.72 (0.98, 3.02) | 2.08 (1.25, 3.47) | 1.28 (0.80, 2.04) |
| Behavioral factors | |||
| Alcohol consumption | |||
| No | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes | 0.82 (0.51, 1.29) | 0.91 (0.54, 1.52) | 0.49 (0.31, 0.80) |
| Tobacco use | |||
| No | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Yes | – | 0.70 (0.37, 1.35) | – |
| Body fat percent | 1.01 (0.97, 1.05) | 1.04 (1.00, 1.08) | 0.97 (0.94, 1.00) |
| Psychosocial factors | |||
| Anxiety | |||
| No | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes (mild-severe) | 1.20 (0.70, 2.07) | 1.47 (0.89, 2.24) | 0.99 (0.62, 1.58) |
| Depression | |||
| No | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes (mild-severe) | 1.48 (0.91, 2.42) | 1.17 (0.74, 1.86) | 0.90 (0.58, 1.38) |
| Chronic stress | |||
| None | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Low | 0.76 (0.50, 1.15) | 0.72 (0.48, 1.09) | – |
| High | 0.96 (0.57, 1.62) | 1.05 (0.65, 1.70) | – |
| Self-perceived health status | |||
| Good-excellent | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Fair-poor | 1.80 (1.23, 2.62) | – | 1.37 (0.96, 1.94) |
| Social support score | – | – | 1.01 (0.97, 1.04) |
| Heath utilization | |||
| Outpatient service within last 4 weeks | |||
| No | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes | 1.90 (1.27, 2.87) | 1.73 (1.20, 2.50) | 1.96 (1.37, 2.80) |
Factors associated with hypertension awareness, treatment, and control over 2-year follow-up among hypertensive participantsa.
Results obtained from multi-level mixed logistic regression model, considering (cluster as level 2) in K-DPP trial participants among hypertensive participants over 2-year period. With missing observations at each time point, the number of participants with hypertension were 274 at baseline, 265 at year one and 260 at year two, respectively.
Bold values indicate statistically significant at p < 0.05.
Variables selected in each model was based on the results of univariate analyses, some variables were included in one model but not in others, therefore represented as “–.”
Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first study in India to investigate a comprehensive range of factors in relation to hypertension awareness, treatment, and control, both cross-sectionally and longitudinally. The study has identified the importance of targeting males and alcohol consumption in relation hypertension management, as well as the importance of psychosocial factors and health utilization. Although more than half of the participants in this study with hypertension were aware of their condition, only a quarter of them were receiving treatment. Despite receiving treatment, <70% participants had their hypertension controlled. A quarter of those who were not receiving treatment had their hypertension controlled, leading to more than 50% of those who were controlled of their hypertension was not dependent on treatment (n = 88). Addressing key risk behaviors and psychosocial factors as well as health utilization may help better manage hypertension and guide policies and promotion strategies in a country like India in the future.
Compared with previous systematic reviews on the region-specific prevalence of hypertension which found about 25% of rural population and 21% of the South India population had hypertension (
Men were found to have poorer hypertension control, compared to women. This is consistent with the results from 44 LMICs that men are less likely to reach each step of hypertension care cascade, (
Alcohol consumption was found to be associated with uncontrolled hypertension in both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Different physiological mechanisms of alcohol in raising BP have been demonstrated in the literature previously (
Besides alcohol consumption, body fat percent was found to be positively associated with hypertension treatment, but uncontrolled hypertension in the longitudinal analysis. This indicates that although patients with a higher fat distribution are likely to get treatment, the treatment doesn't necessarily lead to an optimal control of hypertension. This is different from the other study, where body fact percent was found to be positively associated across all hypertension outcomes, including controlled hypertension (
Anxiety and depressive symptoms were found to be strongly associated with higher level of hypertension awareness and treatment, respectively, although only from the cross-sectional analysis. Previous studies have also found a higher level of psychological distress in participants who were aware of their hypertension (
Similar association was found between poor to fair self-perceived health status and a higher awareness of hypertension. It is known that people with hypertension were more likely to have lower satisfaction of their health status than normotensive counterparts (
Although higher social support was associated with uncontrolled hypertension, this was not supported by the findings from longitudinal analysis. Social factors have been suggested to be associated with better hypertension diagnosis and control (
Another finding from this study was that seeking outpatient service was consistently associated with hypertension awareness, treatment, and control from both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Frequently seeking health service was reported to be associated with better awareness and treatment of hypertension in another India study (
One of the key strengths of this study is that we were able to conduct longitudinal analysis of the participants from K-DPP trial, which enabled us to identify potential predictors of hypertension awareness, treatment, and control. Another strength is that we have included a comprehensive range of factors, including more traditional demographic and behavioral factors, as well as psychosocial factors and health utilization variables. Despite these strengths, there were some limitations. Firstly, longitudinal study results are from K-DPP trial participants, who had been identified as having an elevated risk of diabetes. However, those participants had been randomly selected from the community and their socio demography (age, education, occupation, marital status and household size) were very similar to the general population of rural Kerala (
In conclusion, our findings highlight the potentially important role of psychosocial factors and health service utilization in hypertension management. It is probably also important to give more attention to alcohol consumption in Indian males as well as body fat control. These factors need to be considered in future health promotion strategies directed at the prevention and control of hypertension in India. Furthermore, more longitudinal studies in the general population and studies in other states of India on the determinants of hypertension management are needed, as the current findings in Kerala might be a harbinger of the situation in the rest of India over the coming years. In addition, our findings need to be interpreted properly, considering Indian specific attributes such as the high prevalence of hypertension patients self-medication, healthcare policy and financial burden in patients, as well as quality of health care. These can be further studied in future studies to facilitate policy makings related to hypertension management in India.
Funding
This research was supported by funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia (1005324) and (1160283) for the original and follow-up study of the K-DPP study respectively.
Publisher's Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the SreeChitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Trivandrum in India (SCT/IEC-333/May 2011), Monash University (CF11/0457-2011000194), and the University of Melbourne in Australia (1441736). The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
YC and TS contributed to conceptualization of the study. YC carried out the data analyses and wrote the manuscript. TS contributed to critically reviewing the analysis. TS, TH, NK, GM, YW, and BO contributed to critically review of the manuscript and approved for the final version of the study. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Acknowledgments
We also acknowledge all the participants of the K-DPP study, including peer leaders and community trained staff at the Achutha Menon Centre for Health Science Studies, Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology in Trivandrum.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
1.
OparilSAcelajadoMCBakrisGLBerlowitzDRCifkovaRDominiczakAFet al. Hypertension. Nat Rev Dis Primers. (2018) 4:18014. 10.1038/nrdp.2018.14
2.
MillsKTStefanescuAHeJ. The global epidemiology of hypertension. Nat Rev Nephrol. (2020) 16:223–37. 10.1038/s41581-019-0244-2
3.
RoyAPraveenPAAmarchandRRamakrishnanLGuptaRKondalDet al. Changes in hypertension prevalence, awareness, treatment and control rates over 20 years in National Capital Region of India: results from a repeat cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. (2017) 7:e015639. 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015639
4.
ManciaGFagardRNarkiewiczKRedónJZanchettiABöhmMet al. 2013 ESH/ESC Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: the Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). J Hypertens. (2013) 31:1281–357. 10.1097/01.hjh.0000431740.32696.cc
5.
KnightELBohnRLWangPSGlynnRJMogunHAvornJ. Predictors of uncontrolled hypertension in ambulatory patients. Hypertension. (2001) 38:809–14. 10.1161/hy0901.091681
6.
WeiJMiYLiYXinBWangY. Factors associated with awareness, treatment and control of hypertension among 3579 hypertensive adults in China: data from the China Health and Nutrition Survey. BMC Public Health. (2021) 21:423. 10.1186/s12889-021-10417-4
7.
YangLYanJTangXXuXYuWWuH. Prevalence, awareness, treatment, control and risk factors associated with hypertension among adults in Southern China, 2013. PLoS ONE. (2016) 11:e0146181. 10.1371/journal.pone.0146181
8.
WareLJChidumwaGCharltonKSchutteAEKowalP. Predictors of hypertension awareness, treatment and control in South Africa: results from the WHO-SAGE population survey (Wave 2). J Human Hypertens. (2019) 33:157–66. 10.1038/s41371-018-0125-3
9.
BusingyeDArabshahiSEvansRGSrikanthVKKartikKKalyanramKet al. Factors associated with awareness, treatment and control of hypertension in a disadvantaged rural Indian population. J Human Hypertens. (2017) 31:347–53. 10.1038/jhh.2016.85
10.
PirkleCMYlliABurazeriGSentellTL. Social and community factors associated with hypertension awareness and control among older adults in Tirana, Albania. Euro J Public Health. (2018) 28:1163–8. 10.1093/eurpub/cky036
11.
AwuahRBde-Graft AikinsADodooFN-AMeeksKABeuneEJKlipstein-GrobuschKet al. Psychosocial factors and hypertension prevalence among Ghanaians in Ghana and Ghanaian migrants in Europe: the RODAM study. Health Psychol Open. (2019) 6:2055102919885752–. 10.1177/2055102919885752
12.
CuevasAGWilliamsDRAlbertMA. Psychosocial factors and hypertension: a review of the literature. Cardiol Clin. (2017) 35:223–30. 10.1016/j.ccl.2016.12.004
13.
TrevisolDJMoreiraLBKerkhoffAFuchsSCFuchsFD. Health-related quality of life and hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. J Hypertens. (2011) 29:179–88. 10.1097/HJH.0b013e328340d76f
14.
SumaRKMayamolTRDivakaranBKarunakaranUJayasreeAK. Hypertension: prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control in a rural area of North Kerala, India. Int J Commun Med Public Health. (2017) 4:3561–7. 10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20174184
15.
SajuMDAllaghKPScariaLJosephSThiyagarajanJA. Prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension and its associated risk factors: results from baseline survey of SWADES family cohort study. Int J Hypertens. (2020) 2020:4964835. 10.1155/2020/4964835
16.
GodaraRMathewsEMiniGKThankappanKR. Prevalence, awareness, treatment and control of hypertension among adults aged 30 years and above in Barmer district, Rajasthan, India. Indian Heart J. (2021) 73:236–8. 10.1016/j.ihj.2021.02.007
17.
SathishTWilliamsEDPasrichaNAbsetzPLorgellyPWolfeRet al. Cluster randomised controlled trial of a peer-led lifestyle intervention program: study protocol for the Kerala diabetes prevention program. BMC Public Health. (2013) 13:1035. 10.1186/1471-2458-13-1035
18.
SathishTOldenburgBTappRJShawJEWolfeRSajithaBet al. Baseline characteristics of participants in the Kerala Diabetes Prevention Program: a cluster randomized controlled trial of lifestyle intervention in Asian Indians. Diabetic Med. (2017) 34:647–53. 10.1111/dme.13165
19.
SathishTAzizZAbsetzPThankappanKRTappRJBalachandranSet al. Participant recruitment into a community-based diabetes prevention trial in India: learnings from the Kerala Diabetes Prevention Program. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. (2019) 15:100382. 10.1016/j.conctc.2019.100382
20.
ThankappanKRSathishTTappRJShawJELotfalianyMWolfeRet al. A peer-support lifestyle intervention for preventing type 2 diabetes in India: a cluster-randomized controlled trial of the Kerala Diabetes Prevention Program. PLoS Med. (2018) 15:e1002575. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002575
21.
World Health Organization. Regional Office for South-East A. WHO STEPS Survey: Step Towards a Healthier World: Monitoring Noncommunicable Diseases and Their Risk Factors. New Delhi: World Health Organization. Regional Office for South-East Asia (2018).
22.
SathishTKannanSSarmaSPThankappanKR. Screening performance of diabetes risk scores among Asians and whites in rural Kerala, India. Prev Chronic Dis. (2013) 10:E37–E. 10.5888/pcd10.120131
23.
National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories. Available online at: http://www.nabl-india.org.
24.
JamesPAOparilSCarterBLCushmanWCDennison-HimmelfarbCHandlerJet al. 2014 evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults: report from the panel members appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8). JAMA. (2014) 311:507–20. 10.1001/jama.2013.284427
25.
SomanCRShahulhameedSRamankuttyVVijayakumarKKunjukrishnapillaiRAjayanKet al. Cohort profile: the PROLIFE study in Kerala, India. Int J Epidemiol. (2011) 40:10–4. 10.1093/ije/dyp275
26.
BullFCMaslinTSArmstrongT. Global physical activity questionnaire (GPAQ): nine country reliability and validity study. J Phys Activity Health. (2009) 6:790–804. 10.1123/jpah.6.6.790
27.
SpitzerRLKroenkeKWilliamsJBLöweB. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Internal Med. (2006) 166:1092–7. 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092
28.
PoongothaiSPradeepaRGanesanAMohanV. Reliability and validity of a modified PHQ-9 item inventory (PHQ-12) as a screening instrument for assessing depression in Asian Indians (CURES-65). J Assoc Phys India. (2009) 57:147–52.
29.
BildDEBluemkeDABurkeGLDetranoRDiezRoux AVFolsomARet al. Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis: objectives and design. Am J Epidemiol. (2002) 156:871–81. 10.1093/aje/kwf113
30.
WareJEJrSherbourneCD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. (1992) 30:473–83. 10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002
31.
MitchellPHPowellLBlumenthalJNortenJIronsonGPitulaCRet al. A short social support measure for patients recovering from myocardial infarction: the ENRICHD Social Support Inventory. J Cardiopulmonary Rehabil. (2003) 23:398–403. 10.1097/00008483-200311000-00001
32.
MisraAChowbeyPMakkarBMVikramNKWasirJSChadhaDet al. Consensus statement for diagnosis of obesity, abdominal obesity and the metabolic syndrome for Asian Indians and recommendations for physical activity, medical and surgical management. J Assoc Phys India. (2009) 57:163–70.
33.
AnchalaRKannuriNKPantHKhanHFrancoOHDi AngelantonioEet al. Hypertension in India: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence, awareness, and control of hypertension. J Hypertens. (2014) 32:1170–7. 10.1097/HJH.0000000000000146
34.
VimalaARanjiSAJyosnaMTChandranVMathewsSRPappachanJM. The prevalence, risk factors and awareness of hypertension in an urban population of Kerala (South India). Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl. (2009) 20:685–9.
35.
SathishTKannanSSarmaPSRazumOThankappanKR. Incidence of hypertension and its risk factors in rural Kerala, India: a community-based cohort study. Public Health. (2012) 126:25–32. 10.1016/j.puhe.2011.11.002
36.
MahmoodSShahKUKhanTMNawazSRashidHBaqarSWAet al. Non-pharmacological management of hypertension: in the light of current research. Irish J Med Sci. (2019) 188:437–52. 10.1007/s11845-018-1889-8
37.
GeldsetzerPManne-GoehlerJMarcusM-EEbertCZhumadilovZWessehCSet al. The state of hypertension care in 44 low-income and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study of nationally representative individual-level data from 1·1 million adults. Lancet. (2019) 394:652–62. 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30955-9
38.
MirzaeiMMirzaeiMBagheriBDehghaniA. Awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension and related factors in adult Iranian population. BMC Public Health. (2020) 20:667. 10.1186/s12889-020-08831-1
39.
Das GuptaRShabab HaiderSSutradharIHasanMJoshiHRifat HaiderMet al. Gender differences in hypertension awareness, antihypertensive use and blood pressure control in Nepalese adults: findings from a nationwide cross-sectional survey. J Biosocial Sci. (2020) 52:412–38. 10.1017/S0021932019000531
40.
HusainKAnsariRAFerderL. Alcohol-induced hypertension: mechanism and prevention. World J Cardiol. (2014) 6:245–52. 10.4330/wjc.v6.i5.245
41.
RoereckeMKaczorowskiJTobeSWGmelGHasanOSMRehmJ. The effect of a reduction in alcohol consumption on blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Public Health. (2017) 2:e108–20. 10.1016/S2468-2667(17)30003-8
42.
RoereckeMTobeSWKaczorowskiJBaconSLVafaeiAHasanOSMet al. Sex-specific associations between alcohol consumption and incidence of hypertension: a systematic review and meta analysis of cohort studies. J Am Heart Assoc. (2018) 7:e008202. 10.1161/JAHA.117.008202
43.
HallJECarmoJMdSilvaAAdWangZHallME. Obesity-induced hypertension. Circul Res. (2015) 116:991–1006. 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.305697
44.
HamerMBattyGDStamatakisEKivimakiM. Hypertension awareness and psychological distress. Hypertension. (2010) 56:547–50. 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.110.153775
45.
BautistaLEVera-CalaLMColomboCSmithP. Symptoms of depression and anxiety and adherence to antihypertensive medication. Am J Hypertens. (2012) 25:505–11. 10.1038/ajh.2011.256
46.
NarayananGPrabhakaranD. Integrating mental health into cardiovascular disease research in India. Natl Med J India. (2012) 25:274–80.
47.
CornwellEYWaiteLJ. Social network resources and management of hypertension. J Health Soc Behav. (2012) 53:215–31. 10.1177/0022146512446832
48.
Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India. Census. (2011). Available online at: http://censusindia.gov.in (accessed July 24, 2021).
Summary
Keywords
hypertension, awareness, treatment, control, risk factors, longitudinal, India
Citation
Cao Y, Sathish T, Haregu T, Wen Y, Mello GT, Kapoor N and Oldenburg B (2021) Factors Associated With Hypertension Awareness, Treatment, and Control Among Adults in Kerala, India. Front. Public Health 9:753070. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.753070
Received
04 August 2021
Accepted
11 October 2021
Published
01 November 2021
Volume
9 - 2021
Edited by
Meena Daivadanam, Uppsala University, Sweden
Reviewed by
Prasanna Mithra, Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore, India; Amutha Ramadas, Monash University Malaysia, Malaysia
Updates

Check for updates
Copyright
© 2021 Cao, Sathish, Haregu, Wen, Mello, Kapoor and Oldenburg.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Yingting Cao tina.cao@unimelb.edu.au
This article was submitted to Public Health Education and Promotion, a section of the journal Frontiers in Public Health
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.