4.7 Article

Prevalence of hypertension and its associated factors in contaminated areas of the Santos-Sao Vicente Estuarine region and Bertioga, Brazil: 2006-2009

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 23, 期 19, 页码 19387-19396

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-016-7138-7

关键词

Cross-Sectional studies; Risk factor; environmental pollution; Hypertension; Cardiovascular diseases; Occupational exposure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In Brazil, cardiovascular diseases account for 33% of deaths and the prevalence of hypertension is of approximately 22%. The Santos and So Vicente Estuarine System is the most important example of environmental degradation by chemicals from industrial sources. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the prevalence of hypertension and its associated factors in the population of this estuary in the period 2006-2009. A cross-sectional study was conducted to assess the aforementioned prevalence of hypertension in the evaluated areas, as well as risk factors for this disease in four contaminated areas located in the Estuary, and one area outside Estuary, the city of Bertioga. Associations between categorical variables were tested using Pearson's chi-square test incorporating Yates' correction, or Fisher's exact test. Single and multiple logistic regression models were applied to evaluate the risk factors for hypertension. The highest prevalence of hypertension was found in Continental So Vicente (28.4%). The risk factors for hypertension were the following: living in Center of Cubato (OR: 1.3; IC95%: 1.0 - 1.6) and Continental So Vicente (OR: 1.4; IC95%: 1.1 - 1.8); illiterate (OR: 1.9; IC95%: 1.1 - 3.2); living in the area for more than 20 years (OR: 1.2; IC95%: 1.0 - 1.5); group of people aged 36-60 years (OR: 3.9; IC95%: 3.3 - 4.6) and who have had past occupational exposure (OR: 1.3; IC95%: 1.1 - 1.6). Results indicate that living in contaminated areas, especially for a longer time, is a risk factor for hypertension.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据