↓ Skip to main content

Comparing the income-related inequity of tested prevalence and self-reported prevalence of hypertension in China

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
Comparing the income-related inequity of tested prevalence and self-reported prevalence of hypertension in China
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12939-018-0796-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Min Su, Yafei Si, Zhongliang Zhou, Chi Shen, Wanyue Dong, Xiaojing Fan, Xiao Wang, Xiaolin Wei

Abstract

Hypertension has become a global health challenge given its high prevalence and but low awareness and detection. Whether the actual prevalence of hypertension has been estimated is important, especially for the poor. This study aimed to measure tested prevalence and self-reported prevalence of hypertension and compare the inequity between them in China. Data were derived from China Health and Nutrition Survey (CHNS) conducted in 2011. By using the multistage, stratified, random sampling method, 12,168 respondents aged 18 or older were identified for analysis. Both tested prevalence (systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg or/and diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mmHg or /and current use any of antihypertensive medication) and self-reported prevalence (ever diagnosed with hypertension by a doctor) were used to measure the prevalence of hypertension. The concentration index was employed to measure the extent of inequality in tested prevalence and self-reported prevalence. A decomposition method, based on a Probit model, was used to analyze income-related horizontal inequity of tested prevalence and self-reported prevalence. The tested prevalence and self-reported prevalence of total respondents were 28.8% [95% CI (28.0%, 29.6%)] and 15.7% [95% CI (15.0%, 16.3%)], and 26.4% [95% CI (25.1%, 27.6%)] and 19.0% [95% CI (17.9%, 20.1%)] in urban areas, and 30.3% [95% CI (29.3%, 31.4%)] and 13.5% [95% CI (12.7%, 14.3%)] in rural areas. The horizontal inequity indexes of mean tested prevalence and self-reported prevalence were - 0.0494 and 0.1203 of total respondents, - 0.0736 and 0.0748 in urban area, and - 0.0177 and 0.0466 in rural area respectively, indicating pro-poor inequity in tested prevalence and pro-rich inequity in self-reported prevalence of hypertension. Economic status, education attainment and age were key factors of the pro-poor inequity in tested prevalence. Economic status, area and age were key factors to explain the poor-rich inequity in self-reported prevalence. This study revealed self-reported prevalence of hypertension was much lower than tested prevalence in China, while a larger gap between self-reported and tested prevalence was found in rural areas. Our study suggested social strategies aiming at narrowing economic gap and regional disparities, reducing educational inequity, and facilitating health conditions of the elderly should be implemented. Finally, awareness raising campaigns to test hypertension in rural area need be strengthened by health education programs and improving the access to public health service, especially for those who do not engage with regular health checkups.

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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 4%
Student > Postgraduate 3 4%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 28 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 13%
Social Sciences 7 9%
Unspecified 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 30 39%
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 16 June 2018.
All research outputs
#20,522,137
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,880
of 1,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#288,217
of 328,710 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#43
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,933 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 328,710 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.