↓ Skip to main content

Population-level interventions in government jurisdictions for dietary sodium reduction

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
29 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
238 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
Population-level interventions in government jurisdictions for dietary sodium reduction
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010166.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lindsay McLaren, Nureen Sumar, Amanda M Barberio, Kathy Trieu, Diane L Lorenzetti, Valerie Tarasuk, Jacqui Webster, Norman RC Campbell

Abstract

Excess dietary sodium consumption is a risk factor for high blood pressure, stroke and cardiovascular disease. Currently, dietary sodium consumption in almost every country is too high. Excess sodium intake is associated with high blood pressure, which is common and costly and accounts for significant burden of disease. A large number of jurisdictions worldwide have implemented population-level dietary sodium reduction initiatives. No systematic review has examined the impact of these initiatives. • To assess the impact of population-level interventions for dietary sodium reduction in government jurisdictions worldwide.• To assess the differential impact of those initiatives by social and economic indicators. We searched the following electronic databases from their start date to 5 January 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Cochrane Public Health Group Specialised Register; MEDLINE; MEDLINE In Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations; EMBASE; Effective Public Health Practice Project Database; Web of Science; Trials Register of Promoting Health Interventions (TRoPHI) databases; and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS). We also searched grey literature, other national sources and references of included studies.This review was conducted in parallel with a comprehensive review of national sodium reduction efforts under way worldwide (Trieu 2015), through which we gained additional information directly from country contacts.We imposed no restrictions on language or publication status. We included population-level initiatives (i.e. interventions that target whole populations, in this case, government jurisdictions, worldwide) for dietary sodium reduction, with at least one pre-intervention data point and at least one post-intervention data point of comparable jurisdiction. We included populations of all ages and the following types of study designs: cluster-randomised, controlled pre-post, interrupted time series and uncontrolled pre-post. We contacted study authors at different points in the review to ask for missing information. Two review authors extracted data, and two review authors assessed risk of bias for each included initiative.We analysed the impact of initiatives by using estimates of sodium consumption from dietary surveys or urine samples. All estimates were converted to a common metric: salt intake in grams per day. We analysed impact by computing the mean change in salt intake (grams per day) from pre-intervention to post-intervention. We reviewed a total of 881 full-text documents. From these, we identified 15 national initiatives, including more than 260,000 people, that met the inclusion criteria. None of the initiatives were provided in lower-middle-income or low-income countries. All initiatives except one used an uncontrolled pre-post study design.Because of high levels of study heterogeneity (I(2) > 90%), we focused on individual initiatives rather than on pooled results.Ten initiatives provided sufficient data for quantitative analysis of impact (64,798 participants). As required by the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method, we graded the evidence as very low due to the risk of bias of the included studies, as well as variation in the direction and size of effect across the studies. Five of these showed mean decreases in average daily salt intake per person from pre-intervention to post-intervention, ranging from 1.15 grams/day less (Finland) to 0.35 grams/day less (Ireland). Two initiatives showed mean increase in salt intake from pre-intervention to post-intervention: Canada (1.66) and Switzerland (0.80 grams/day more per person. The remaining initiatives did not show a statistically significant mean change.Seven of the 10 initiatives were multi-component and incorporated intervention activities of a structural nature (e.g. food product reformulation, food procurement policy in specific settings). Of those seven initiatives, four showed a statistically significant mean decrease in salt intake from pre-intervention to post-intervention, ranging from Finland to Ireland (see above), and one showed a statistically significant mean increase in salt intake from pre-intervention to post-intervention (Switzerland; see above).Nine initiatives permitted quantitative analysis of differential impact by sex (men and women separately). For women, three initiatives (China, Finland, France) showed a statistically significant mean decrease, four (Austria, Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom) showed no significant change and two (Canada, United States) showed a statistically significant mean increase in salt intake from pre-intervention to post-intervention. For men, five initiatives (Austria, China, Finland, France, United Kingdom) showed a statistically significant mean decrease, three (Netherlands, Switzerland, United States) showed no significant change and one (Canada) showed a statistically significant mean increase in salt intake from pre-intervention to post-intervention.Information was insufficient to indicate whether a differential change in mean salt intake occurred from pre-intervention to post-intervention by other axes of equity included in the PROGRESS framework (e.g. education, place of residence).We identified no adverse effects of these initiatives.The number of initiatives was insufficient to permit other subgroup analyses, including stratification by intervention type, economic status of country and duration (or start year) of the initiative.Many studies had methodological strengths, including large, nationally representative samples of the population and rigorous measurement of dietary sodium intake. However, all studies were scored as having high risk of bias, reflecting the observational nature of the research and the use of an uncontrolled study design. The quality of evidence for the main outcome was low. We could perform a sensitivity analysis only for impact. Population-level interventions in government jurisdictions for dietary sodium reduction have the potential to result in population-wide reductions in salt intake from pre-intervention to post-intervention, particularly if they are multi-component (more than one intervention activity) and incorporate intervention activities of a structural nature (e.g. food product reformulation), and particularly amongst men. Heterogeneity across studies was significant, reflecting different contexts (population and setting) and initiative characteristics. Implementation of future initiatives should embed more effective means of evaluation to help us better understand the variation in the effects.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 238 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Morocco 1 <1%
Unknown 236 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 17%
Researcher 38 16%
Student > Bachelor 30 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 13%
Student > Postgraduate 13 5%
Other 45 19%
Unknown 41 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 51 21%
Social Sciences 18 8%
Psychology 12 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Other 36 15%
Unknown 50 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 53. 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 24 May 2020.
All research outputs
#403,656
of 15,314,925 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,012
of 11,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,342
of 223,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#25
of 179 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,314,925 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,168 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 223,247 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 179 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.