Key result
Pilot hypertension program linked to ~9% higher absolute blood pressure control versus non-pilot facilities.
Why the study?
Hypertension is rising in Ethiopia, but the effectiveness of a pilot primary healthcare hypertension program initiated to optimize control and reduce cardiovascular complications had not been ascertained.
Does a pilot hypertension program improve hypertension prevention, treatment, and control in primary healthcare settings compared to standard care?
Observational
Yes
Does a pilot hypertension program improve hypertension prevention, treatment, and control in primary healthcare settings compared to standard care?
A pilot hypertension program in Ethiopian primary healthcare settings significantly improved opportunistic blood pressure screening, detection, and control rates compared to standard care.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support scaling hypertension programs in low-resource settings; leaves open causality and generalizability pending prospective trials.
BACKGROUND Hypertension is one of the rising non-communicable diseases in Ethiopia. To achieve optimal hypertension control, and reduce the risk of cardiovascular complications, Ethiopia had initiated a hypertension program in primary healthcare settings whose effectiveness has not yet been ascertained OBJECTIVE This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of a pilot hypertension program in the Amhara region of Ethiopia METHODS A parallel evaluation design guided by the CDC’s Framework of evaluating public health programs was conducted at four pilot and four non-pilot health facilities in the Amhara region of Ethiopia. Data were collected using checklist with a structured questionnaire from face-to face interviews, record reviews and observations. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 25.0. Statistical comparisons were made using chi-square tests, t-tests, 95% confidence intervals, and p < 0.05 RESULTS Opportunistic blood pressure (BP) screening was significantly higher in pilot facilities (91%, 95% CI: 87.8–93.5%) than in non-pilot facilities (74.4%, 95% CI: 71.2–79.7%). Hypertension detection rate was significantly higher in pilot facilities (19.9%, 95% CI: 16.2–24.0%) compared to non-pilot facilities (14.9%, 95% CI: 11.7–18.6%). Half (51.8%) of the hypertensive patients in the pilot facilities and 42.4% in the non-pilot facilities had controlled BP, with a statistically significant difference in BP control rates between facilities (chi-square, X2=0.823; p < 0.001). Overall, pilot facilities showed better performance in the hypertension prevention (72.8% vs 43.6%), treatment (85.3% vs 55.0%) and control domains (49.8% vs 42.4%). The mean performance across the three domains was higher in pilot facilities (76.1%) compared to non-pilot facilities (51.2%) (t = 2.125; p = 0.042) CONCLUSIONS The pilot program in the Amhara region showed promising results in hypertension prevention, treatment, and control. These results support the scale-up of pilot components into nationwide program such as structured approaches in hypertension management, protocol adherence and integration into community level care
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gashe et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Hypertension. Pilot hypertension program vs. Non-pilot facilities was evaluated on Blood pressure control (p=<0.001). A pilot hypertension program in Ethiopia significantly improved blood pressure control rates compared to non-pilot facilities (51.8% vs 42.4%, p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: