Key result
Self-reported hypertension in Indian adults over 45 years demonstrated low sensitivity (56%), high specificity (90.5%), and moderate agreement (κ = 0.48) compared to biometric measurement.
Why the study?
The validity of self-reported health measures is under-researched and questionable in low- and middle-income countries.
Is self-reported hypertension a valid measure compared to biometrically-measured hypertension in Indian adults over 45 years?
Cross-Sectional
Yes
Is self-reported hypertension a valid measure compared to biometrically-measured hypertension in Indian adults over 45 years?
Effect estimate: Sensitivity 56%, Specificity 90.5%, κ = 0.48
Self-reported hypertension has low sensitivity and moderate agreement with objective measurements in India, suggesting policy should rely on objective assessments.
Self-reported hypertension shows only moderate agreement with measured values in India; leaves open the need for validated measures in LMIC surveillance.
Self-reported measures of health, in the context of developed countries, are well-researched and commonly regarded as reliable predictors of the underlying health of the population. However, the validity of these measures is under-researched and questionable in the context of low- and middle-income countries. The authors used Longitudinal Ageing Study in India (LASI) survey data from India to compare self-reported hypertension with biometrically-measured hypertension. The results are reported in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and kappa as a measure of agreement. Logistic regression was undertaken to examine the characteristics of those who were unaware of their hypertensive status. Our analysis showed a low sensitivity of 56% and a high specificity of 90.5%. Agreement between self-reported data and biometric measurement of hypertension was observed to be moderate (κ = 0.48). Large variations were observed among states and sub-groups. The odds of false negative reporting of hypertension were lower in the individuals with higher age, high education, and greater wealth status. The authors conclude that self-reported hypertension has important limitations and may be a source of systematic bias. It is recommended that planning and policy-making in India be based more on an objective assessment of hypertension.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bhatia et al. (2022) conducted a cross-sectional in Hypertension. Self-reported hypertension vs. Biometrically-measured hypertension was evaluated on Validity and agreement of self-reported hypertension compared to biometric measurement (Sensitivity 56%, Specificity 90.5%, κ = 0.48). Self-reported hypertension in Indian adults over 45 years demonstrated low sensitivity (56%), high specificity (90.5%), and moderate agreement (κ = 0.48) compared to biometric measurement.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: