4.5 Article

Regional disparities of hypertension prevalence and management within Germany

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 293-299

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.hjh.0000200508.10324.8e

关键词

epidemiology; Germany; hypertension; prevalence; regional disparities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To investigate regional variations in the prevalence and management of hypertension in two communities in the north-east and the south-west of Germany. Study setting Two population-based surveys of men and women aged 25-74 years, using a common standardized protocol: the Study of Health in Pomerania (SHIP; 3744 participants) and the Kooperative Gesundheitsforschung in der Region Augsburg (KORA; 4224 participants). Main outcome measures Comparison of SHIP and KORA with regard to mean systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), prevalence of hypertension, percentage of awareness, treatment and control of hypertension in the community, by age and sex. Results The overall age-standardized prevalence of hypertension for men was 60.1% in SHIP and 41.4% in KORA; the corresponding values for women were 38.5 and 28.6%. Mean blood pressure differences were present in each 10-year age group and sex. The overall SBP difference between SHIP and KORA was 8.2 mmHg (95% confidence interval 7.2-9.3) in men and 6.3 mmHg (5.3-7.3) in women, the respective DBP differences were 3.8 mmHg (3.2-4.5) and 3.6 mmHg (3.0-4.2). Nevertheless, the percentage of awareness, treatment and control of hypertension was strikingly similar in the two studies (women, P = 0.858; and men, P = 0.564). Conclusions The entire distribution of diastolic and systolic blood pressure values was shifted upwards in the northeastern as compared to the south-western German population samples and the prevalences of hypertension differed accordingly. Despite such substantial epidemiologic differences, the community management of hypertension was of almost identical quality.

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

4.5
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