↓ Skip to main content

Burden of cumulative risk factors associated with non-communicable diseases among adults in Uganda: evidence from a national baseline survey

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
234 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Burden of cumulative risk factors associated with non-communicable diseases among adults in Uganda: evidence from a national baseline survey
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12939-016-0486-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ronald Wesonga, David Guwatudde, Silver K. Bahendeka, Gerald Mutungi, Fabian Nabugoomu, James Muwonge

Abstract

Modification of known risk factors has been the most tested strategy for dealing with non-communicable diseases (NCDs). The cumulative number of NCD risk factors exhibited by an individual depicts a disease burden. However, understanding the risk factors associated with increased NCD burden has been constrained by scarcity of nationally representative data, especially in the developing countries and not well explored in the developed countries as well. Assessment of key risk factors for NCDs using population data drawn from 3987 participants in a nationally representative baseline survey in Uganda was made. Five key risk factors considered for the indicator variable included: high frequency of tobacco smoking, less than five servings of fruit and vegetables per day, low physical activity levels, high body mass index and raised blood pressure. We developed a composite indicator dependent variable with counts of number of risk factors associated with NCDs per participant. A statistical modeling framework was developed and a multinomial logistic regression model was fitted. The endogenous and exogenous predictors of NCD cumulative risk factors were assessed. A novel model framework for cumulative number of NCD risk factors was developed. Most respondents, 38 · 6% exhibited one or two NCD risk factors each. Of the total sample, 56 · 4% had at least two risk factors whereas only 5.3% showed no risk factor at all. Body mass index, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, consumption of fruit and vegetables, age, region, residence, type of residence and land tenure system were statistically significant predictors of number of NCD risk factors (p < 0 · 05). With exception to diastolic blood pressure, increase in age, body mass index, systolic blood pressure and reduction in daily fruit and vegetable servings were found to significantly increase the relative risks of exhibiting cumulative NCD risk factors. Compared to the urban residence status, the relative risk of living in a rural area significantly increased the risk of having 1 or 2 risk factors by a multiple of 1.55. The non-communicable disease burden is on the increase, with more participants reporting to have at least two risk factors. Our findings imply that, besides endogenous factors, exogenous factors such as region, residence status, land tenure system and behavioral characteristics have significant causal effects on the cumulative NCD risk factors. Subsequently, while developing interventions to combat cumulative risk factors of NCDs, the Ministry of Health needs to employ a more holistic approach to facilitate equitable health and sensitization across age, residence and regional divide.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 234 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 234 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 56 24%
Researcher 30 13%
Student > Postgraduate 17 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 6%
Student > Bachelor 14 6%
Other 38 16%
Unknown 64 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 4%
Psychology 8 3%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Other 29 12%
Unknown 73 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 December 2016.
All research outputs
#18,483,671
of 22,903,988 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,733
of 1,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#304,681
of 416,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#40
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,903,988 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,915 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 416,461 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.