↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention led by female community health volunteers versus usual care in blood pressure reduction (COBIN): an open-label, cluster-randomised trial

Overview of attention for article published in The Lancet Global Health, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
51 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
134 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
333 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
Effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention led by female community health volunteers versus usual care in blood pressure reduction (COBIN): an open-label, cluster-randomised trial
Published in
The Lancet Global Health, January 2018
DOI 10.1016/s2214-109x(17)30411-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dinesh Neupane, Craig S McLachlan, Shiva Raj Mishra, Michael Hecht Olsen, Henry B Perry, Arjun Karki, Per Kallestrup

Abstract

Elevated blood pressure greatly contributes to cardiovascular deaths in low-income and middle-income countries. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of a population-level intervention led by existing community health workers in reducing the burden of hypertension in a low-income population. We did a community-based, open-label, two-group, cluster-randomised controlled trial in Nepal. Using computer-generated codes, we randomly assigned (1:1) 14 clusters to a lifestyle intervention led by female community health volunteers (FCHVs) or usual care (control group). In the intervention group, 43 FCHVs provided home visits every 4 months for lifestyle counselling and blood pressure monitoring. Eligible participants had been involved in a previous population-based survey, were aged 25-65 years, did not have plans to migrate outside the study area, and were not severely ill or pregnant. The primary outcome was mean systolic blood pressure at 1 year. We included all participants who remained in the trial at 1 year in the primary analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02428075. Between April 1, 2015, and Dec 31, 2015, we recruited 1638 participants (939 assigned to intervention; 699 assigned to control). At 1 year, 855 participants remained in the intervention group (425 were normotensive, 175 were prehypertensive, and 255 had hypertension) and 613 remained in the control group (305 were normotensive, 128 were prehypertensive, and 180 had hypertension). The mean systolic blood pressure at 1 year was significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group for all cohorts: the difference was -2·28 mm Hg (95% CI -3·77 to -0·79, p=0·003) for participants who were normotensive, -3·08 mm Hg (-5·58 to -0·59, p=0·015) for participants who were prehypertensive, and -4·90 mm Hg (-7·78 to -2·00, p=0·001) for participants who were hypertensive. A simple, FCHV-led lifestyle intervention coupled with monitoring of blood pressure is effective for reduction of blood pressure in individuals with hypertension and ameliorates age-related increases in blood pressure in adults without hypertension in the general population of Nepal. Aarhus University, Jayanti Memorial Trust.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 X users 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 333 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 333 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 57 17%
Researcher 40 12%
Student > Bachelor 26 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 7%
Other 17 5%
Other 60 18%
Unknown 110 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 82 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 49 15%
Social Sciences 23 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 2%
Other 40 12%
Unknown 125 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. 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 12 February 2024.
All research outputs
#946,549
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet Global Health
#802
of 3,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,666
of 449,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet Global Health
#16
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,172 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 61.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
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 449,550 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.