Socioeconomic factors influencing hypertension care in urban REWA, Madhya Pradesh, India

Q: What are the key findings of this study?

Higher socioeconomic status was independently associated with good hypertension care (OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.69-4.45; p<0.001) among urban Indian adults with hypertension.

Q: What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Cross-Sectional. Population: Hypertension (n=440). Intervention: Higher socioeconomic status (Modified B.G. Prasad Scale) vs. Lower socioeconomic status. Primary outcome: Good hypertension care (composite Hypertension Care Score) (OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.69-4.45, p=<0.001).

Q: What does this research mean for the field?

Higher socioeconomic status is independently associated with better hypertension care among urban Indian adults. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.CONFIRMATORY. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.SUPPORTS_CONSENSUS.

Q: What question did this study set out to answer?

To assess how socioeconomic factors, education, and access to financial protection influence hypertension care and blood pressure management in an urban population.

Medha Singh Tiwari

doi:10.6026/973206300227113

October 31, 2026BioinformationOpen Access

Socioeconomic factors influencing hypertension care in urban REWA, Madhya Pradesh, India

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

Key result

Higher socioeconomic status is linked to ~2.7-fold higher odds of good hypertension care.

OR 2.74
95% CI 1.69-4.45
P<0.001
n=440

Why the study?

Hypertension care remains inadequate among socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, particularly in urban Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, India.

Key Points

To assess how socioeconomic factors, education, and access to financial protection influence hypertension care and blood pressure management in an urban population.
Community-based cross-sectional study evaluating N=440 hypertensive adults in urban Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, India.
Conducted via multistage sampling using a pre-tested questionnaire to measure sociodemographic traits, barriers, and a composite Hypertension Care Score.
Good, fair, and poor hypertension care occurred in 35.0% (n=154), 45.0% (n=198), and 20.0% (n=88) of participants, respectively, while blood pressure was controlled in 54.1% (n=238).
Good care was independently predicted by higher socioeconomic class (Adjusted OR = 2.74; 95% CI: 1.69–4.45; p < 0.001), graduate education (Adjusted OR = 2.36; 95% CI: 1.41–3.96; p = 0.001), regular physical activity (Adjusted OR = 1.94; 95% CI: 1.21–3.12; p = 0.006), health insurance (Adjusted OR = 1.89; 95% CI: 1.18–3.04; p = 0.008), and monthly income above the median (Adjusted OR = 1.78; 95% CI: 1.09–2.92; p = 0.021).
The primary barriers reported were financial constraints (40.5%) and medicine costs (36.8%), with 41.4% spending ₹5,000–10,000 annually out of pocket.

Study Design

Type

Cross-Sectional (n=440)

Multicenter

No

Structured PICO

P

Population

440 hypertensive adults (mean age 52.4 years, 48.2% female) residing in urban Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, India for at least 1 year, excluding pregnant women and critically ill or severely cognitively impaired individuals, evaluated in a cross-sectional survey over 6 months.

O

Outcome

Hypertension Care Score (a composite index assessing timely diagnosis, treatment continuity, regularity of physician follow-up, frequency of blood pressure monitoring, adherence to recommended lifestyle modifications, affordability of antihypertensive medications, receipt of health education and counselling, and blood pressure control, categorized as good, fair, or poor)composite

Main Result

Odds Ratio: 2.74 (95% CI 1.69–4.45)

p-value: p=<0.001

Socioeconomic status, education, income, health insurance coverage, and physical activity are independent determinants of adequate hypertension care in urban India, highlighting the need to address financial and literacy barriers alongside primary care strengthening.

Ask about this paper

Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.

Implication

Highlights socioeconomic influences on hypertension care in urban India; leaves open whether interventions improve outcomes.

Abstract

Hypertension care remains inadequate among socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, particularly in urban Rewa, Madhya Pradesh. This cross-sectional study assessed 440 hypertensive adults using multistage sampling, a pre-tested questionnaire and a composite Hypertension Care Score. Good, fair and poor care was reported in 35.0%, 45.0% and 20.0% of participants, respectively, while blood pressure was controlled in 54.1%. Education, socioeconomic status, income, health insurance and physical activity were significantly associated with better hypertension care (p<0.001). Thus, addressing socioeconomic inequalities through primary care, health literacy and financial protection may improve equitable hypertension management.

Discussion

No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.

Cite This Study

Medha Singh Tiwari (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Hypertension (n=440). Higher socioeconomic status (Modified B.G. Prasad Scale) vs. Lower socioeconomic status was evaluated on Good hypertension care (composite Hypertension Care Score) (OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.69-4.45, p=<0.001). Higher socioeconomic status was independently associated with good hypertension care (OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.69-4.45; p<0.001) among urban Indian adults with hypertension.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6aee6bc771a7594806220b7b https://doi.org/10.6026/973206300227113

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

Socioeconomic factors influencing hypertension care in urban REWA, Madhya Pradesh, India

Key Points

Study Design

Structured PICO

Main Result

Ask about this paper

Implication

Abstract

Discussion

Cite This Study

Socioeconomic factors influencing hypertension care in urban REWA, Madhya Pradesh, India

Key Points

Study Design

Structured PICO

Main Result

Ask about this paper

Implication

Abstract

Discussion

Cite This Study

Keep reading

Keep reading