Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Nov 28;18(11):e0294177. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294177

Burden of undiagnosed hypertension and its associated factors: A challenge for primary health care in urban Colombia

Jorge Emilio Salazar Flórez 1,*, Ángela Patricia Echeverri Rendón 2, Luz Stella Giraldo Cardona 1
Editor: Bruno Pereira Nunes3
PMCID: PMC10684019  PMID: 38015897

Abstract

Background

Arterial hypertension is one of the most prevalent chronic, non-communicable diseases and the leading preventable risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality worldwide. Although its primary causes and consequences are preventable, it often remains undiagnosed. Consequently, this study aims to determine the prevalence and factors associated with normotensive, diagnosed, and undiagnosed hypertension in adults.

Methods

A cross-sectional, population-based study was conducted in Sabaneta, Colombia, between 2021 and 2022, with 286 adults aged 18 and older. Stratified and systematic random sampling methods were employed. The World Health Organization STEP survey and the Perez Rojas test were utilized to assess behavioral risk factors and sedentary lifestyles. Body mass index, waist circumference, and arterial tension were measured using standardized instruments. The prevalence of hypertension was then estimated. Risk factors influencing normotensive, diagnosed, and undiagnosed hypertension were analyzed using multinomial regression. The outcome variable comprised three categories: normotensive (reference category), diagnosed hypertension, and undiagnosed hypertension. The multinomial regression coefficients were exponentiated and are presented as relative risk ratios (RRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The model was adjusted for sex and sample weight per neighborhood.

Results

The study revealed a hypertension prevalence of 38.5% and an undiagnosed hypertension rate of 50.9%. Those with undiagnosed hypertension were predominantly adults over 60 years (RRR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.53–0.86), individuals with an elementary school education (RRR = 1.75; 95% CI: 1.27–2.42), those physically active (RRR = 1.52; 95% CI: 1.22–1.89), without prior diagnoses of chronic comorbidities (RRR = 1.42; 95% CI: 1.12–1.82), and with obesity (RRR = 2.25; 95% CI: 1.63–3.11) or overweight conditions (RRR = 1.70; 95% CI: 1.334–2.15).

Conclusions

Undiagnosed hypertension was significant among populations without risk conditions. There is an urgent need for community-based early detection and education strategies to mitigate this issue.

Introduction

Hypertension (HTN), a dominant chronic condition [1], serves as the primary modifiable risk factor for global cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality [2]. Defined by a systolic BP (≥140 mmHg) or diastolic BP (≥90 mmHg), HTN was linked to 10.4 million deaths in 2017, affecting 20% of adults worldwide [13]. This disease is shaped by genetics, age, substance use, lifestyle, healthcare accessibility, and dietary habits [1, 47].

Financially, HTN and its related ailments burden health systems. In 2001, high BP costs approximated 10% of the global health expenditures [8]. In Colombia, basic HTN care costs 184,631 pesos per patient monthly, but complications can substantially increase this figure [9]. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), HTN prevalence surpasses that of affluent nations, yet diagnosis and treatment lag [1, 5]. Remarkably, 75% of those with HTN are in LMICs [1, 6]. Recent studies show BP decreasing in high-income countries over four decades, whereas it rises in LMICs, notably in Latin America [7, 10].

In 2019, CVD was the primary cause of death in the Americas, responsible for one-third of regional fatalities. The same year recorded hypertension in 34.4% of the populace, with effective control in merely 40.9% of women and 32.2% of men [1113]. A significant number remain undiagnosed due to asymptomatic nature of hypertension, reinforcing the "hypertension care gap" [4]. The challenge lies in early diagnosis, treatment adherence, and control to diminish cardiovascular mortality [11, 12, 14]. Disturbingly, 46% of hypertensive individuals are undiagnosed [15], and in a sample of adults aged 15–54, 66.8% were similarly undiagnosed [16]. Several studies pinpoint male gender, tobacco use, physical activity, and being overweight as key risk factors in undiagnosed hypertension, especially evident in Asian and African nations with rates from 50.4% to 59.9% [14, 15, 1719].

Research into care cascade gaps and undiagnosed hypertension remains scant. Data from the 2010 CARMELA study indicated undiagnosed hypertension rates from 24.0% to 47.0% across seven Latin American cities [20], while the U.S. had a rate below 7.0% in 2018 [21]. A 2021 study in Peru unveiled a 67.0% prevalence [22]. However, there is a distinct lack of data for Colombia and its neighbors, leading to the focus of this study, which aims to identify risk factors of undiagnosed hypertension in Colombian adults and guide policymakers in tailored strategy development.

Materials and methods

This research is a population-based cross-sectional study. The reporting of results adhered to the STROBE guidelines for observational studies (S1 Checklist). Stratified sampling was employed based on three criteria: 1) area of residence: rural or urban; 2) age group: young adult (<41 years), middle-aged adult (41–60 years), and older adult (>60 years); and 3) sex: male or female. To target the units of analysis (adults aged over 18 years), a systematic random selection was enforced in each neighborhood or sidewalk, opting for every second household. This study spanned from February 01, 2022, to December 20, 2022, in Sabaneta, Colombia.

To determine the sample size, we referenced the 2019 population projection from the National Administrative Department of Statistics (DANE, as per its Spanish acronym). In 2019, the population aged over 18 in the municipality totaled 69,045 individuals [23]. A formula was utilized to project a prevalence, setting a 95.0% confidence interval, an anticipated hypertension prevalence of 28.0%, and a maximum permissible error of 5.0%. This resulted in a targeted sample of 306 individuals. The computation was executed using the free online software, Open Epi 3.01. The study ultimately encompassed 286 adults, translating to a response rate of 93.5%.

Instruments

Interviews were conducted face-to-face by medical students who were both qualified and experienced in data collection. Information was gathered on demographics, anthropometric indicators, sedentary behaviors, behavioral risk factors, arterial tension, and heart rate.

Vital signs of all participants were checked three times. Heart rate was determined using an oximeter (model MD300C29) after a 15-minute rest. Arterial tension was assessed using a pre-calibrated manometer (model CE 0297). The procedure for measuring arterial pressure adhered to the guidelines of the Sixth Joint National Committee (JNC VI) [24] which is in line with the recommendations of the American Heart Association [25], the American Society of Hypertension, and the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) [26]. After a 15-minute rest period, enumerators took three readings each of systolic and diastolic blood pressures at five-minute intervals. An individual was classified as hypertensive if they recorded a systolic blood pressure (SBP) of ≥140 mmHg and/or a diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of ≥90 mmHg, as per the JNC VI guidelines [24]. Undiagnosed hypertension was characterized by having an SBP of ≥140 mmHg or a DBP of ≥90 mmHg, without any prior hypertension diagnosis from a healthcare professional or without being on antihypertensive medications. The study’s primary variable of interest was segmented into three categories: normotensive, diagnosed hypertension, and undiagnosed hypertension.

Anthropometric measurements were taken using various instruments. A calibrated balance model 142KL was used for weight determinations, and for height, a tallimeter with a movable foot was employed. Abdominal and pelvic circumferences were measured with a handheld tape measure.

The World Health Organization (WHO) Chronic Diseases STEPwise approach to Surveillance (STEPS) survey was incorporated, designed to assess behavioral, anthropometric, biological, and demographic attributes [27]. Pertinent to our study, we extracted demographic details such as gender, age, marital status, and education level. Behavioral risk factors considered included smoking, alcohol consumption, and fruit and vegetable intake. Cardiometabolic risk factors taken into account were high body mass index, diabetes, and elevated cholesterol.

Additionally, the Pérez-Rojas-García test for classifying sedentary lifestyles was administered [28]. Participants were stratified as either severely sedentary, moderately sedentary, active, or highly active based on the test outcomes. The process began with recording the heart rate. Participants were then subjected to three bouts of exercise at varying intensities, each bout involving stepping up and down on a 25 cm step for three minutes with a one-minute rest interval between each. The set intensities were 68, 104, and 144 beats per minute for the respective bouts. If, after the initial bout, the heart rate remained below 120 bpm, the subsequent bout was initiated. An early termination of the test occurred if the heart rate exceeded 120 bpm following the first bout, categorizing the individual as "severely sedentary." Those who completed the second bout were classified as "moderately sedentary." This instrument had previously been validated on the Colombian population aged between 18 and 60 years [29].

Statistical analysis

Data analysis was conducted using R software (v 4.2.2, www.r-project.org/). The demographic attributes, lifestyle habits, anthropometric indices, and comorbidities were presented through absolute frequencies and percentages for qualitative variables, while means and standard deviations described the quantitative variables. Data was segmented based on three categories: normotensive, diagnosed hypertension, and undiagnosed hypertension. Differences across these categories in terms of general characteristics, lifestyle, and comorbidities were assessed via the chi-square test of independence. All statistical tests were two-tailed with a significance level set at α = 0.05.

For understanding the relationship between dependent and independent variables, a multivariable multinomial regression model was employed, adjusting for potential confounders. Every variable was introduced into the multinomial logistic regression model in one step, and the least significant ones were sequentially removed until the most concise model was achieved. The dependent variable had three classifications: normotensive, diagnosed hypertension, and undiagnosed hypertension, with the normotensive group serving as the reference for comparison in the regression analysis. Coefficients from the multinomial regression were exponentiated and presented as relative risk ratios (RRR) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Here, the RRR represents the likelihood of an outcome in the exposed group relative to its occurrence in the unexposed group. In the context of this study, a p-value less than 0.05 indicated statistical significance. Independent variables encompassed aspects like lifestyle choices, substance use, dietary habits, anthropometric indicators, sedentary behavior, and existing comorbidities. Adjustments in this model were made for gender and a weighting variable representing the distribution of participation across neighborhoods. The choice of variables incorporated in the multinomial model was driven by their theoretical relevance, as depicted in Fig 1. Existing research posits that inconsistencies in hypertension care are unevenly spread across different demographic sections. This implies that younger individuals are notably more susceptible to inadequate hypertension management [15, 22, 30]. Additionally, groups like women, economically disadvantaged individuals, those with minimal educational backgrounds, those adopting risky lifestyles (e.g., unhealthy eating habits, limited physical activity, alcohol consumption), and rural dwellers are more inclined to either be oblivious of their hypertension, remain untreated, or have uncontrolled hypertension [18, 30]. Such observations align with the hypothesis posited by Dhungana et al. [4], emphasizing that any lapse in the care continuum augments health risks.

Fig 1. A theoretical model for the relationship between undiagnosed hypertension and risk factors in adults over 18 years.

Fig 1

Source: created by the authors.

This study adhered to all international research protocols concerning human subjects and the Colombian standard 8430 established in 1993 [31]. Participation was entirely voluntary, with participants providing informed consent. The research received prior approval from the Research Center and Ethical Review Board of the Sabaneta campus of San Martin University, under the reference CI-FUSM-2022-001. Before initiating the data collection process, written consent was obtained from the participants. Furthermore, the tools used for data collection ensured full confidentiality, safeguarding the privacy of the participants. The authors were never privy to any information that could personally identify the participants, both during the study and post data collection.

Results

Of the participants, 38.5% had hypertension (95.0% CI: 32.7–44.3). Out of the 110 hypertensive participants, 50.9% were undiagnosed (95.0% CI: 41.1–60.7) as depicted in Fig 2.

Fig 2. Prevalence of normotensive, diagnosed and undiagnosed hypertension in adults over 18 years.

Fig 2

Sabaneta, 2022. Source: created by the authors.

The demographics of the participants are summarized in Table 1. The majority of participants were female (n = 163; 57.0%) and below the age of 60 (n = 183; 63.9%). Participants’ ages ranged from 19 to 91 years, with a median age of 51.2 years, an interquartile range of 34.3 years, a mean age of 50.2 years, and a standard deviation of 18.8 years. Over 80% of the participants accessed health care either through the contributory scheme or as beneficiaries, which is how the salaried population in Colombia typically accesses health care services. Regarding education, 42.3% (n = 121) had finished elementary school, while 30.1% had completed high school. In terms of marital status, the largest segment was either married or in a partnership (n = 130; 45.5%). Socioeconomically, the majority (n = 159; 58.0%) were categorized as low income. When comparing demographic characteristics among normotensive, diagnosed, and undiagnosed hypertension groups, no significant differences were observed (p-value > 0.05).

Table 1. Demographic characteristics in adults over 18 years by normotensive, diagnosed and undiagnosed hypertension.

Sabaneta, 2022.

Factor Normotensive Diagnosed hypertension Undiagnosed hypertension Total p valuea
  n = 176 % n = 54 % n = 56 % n = 286 %  
Sex                  
Female 101 62.0 32 19.6 30 18.4 163 57.0 0.822
Male 75 61.0 22 17.9 26 21.1 123 43.0  
Age (Years)                  
< 60 120 65.6 29 15.8 34 18.6 183 64.0 0.130
> = 60 56 54.4 25 24.3 22 21.4 103 36.0  
Social protection in health                  
Beneficiary / Contributor 135 62.2 39 18.0 43 19.8 217 75.9 0.409
Linked / Other 24 60.0 11 27.5 5 12.5 40 14.0  
Education level                  
Elementary school 65 53.7 30 24.8 26 21.5 121 42.3 0.243
High school 57 66.3 11 12.8 18 20.9 86 30.1  
Technical or technological 25 71.4 6 17.1 4 11.4 35 12.2  
University / postgrad 29 65.9 7 15.9 8 18.2 44 15.4  
Marital status                  
Single 76 67.9 17 15.2 19 17.0 112 39.2 0.215
Married / partnership 77 59.2 29 22.3 24 18.5 130 45.5  
Separated / divorced / widowed 23 52.3 8 18.2 13 29.5 44 15.4  
Socioeconomic status                  
Low 99 62.3 30 18.9 30 18.9 159 55.6 0.555
Middle 67 58.3 23 20.0 25 21.7 115 40.2  
Sample 176   54   56   286    

a: chi-square test of association

Approximately 51.4% (n = 147) of the participants were aware of the health benefits plan. A significant 60.0% (n = 172) reported alcohol consumption. Only 37.4% consumed the recommended amount of fruit, while 50.3% met the recommended vegetable intake. When looking at those diagnosed with hypertension, 49.4% had dyslipidemia, and 42.1% led a sedentary lifestyle. Additionally, 42.0% of the total respondents were overweight. Notably, within the hypertensive group, there was a higher prevalence of obesity at 56.0% and abdominal obesity at 50.9% (as detailed in Table 2). Based on the data in Table 2, significant statistical differences were identified in the prevalence of hypertension in relation to diabetes (p = 0.003), dyslipidemia (p = 0.001), heart attack history (p = 0.036), sedentary habits (p = 0.001), BMI (p = 0.009), and abdominal obesity (p = 0.000).

Table 2. Clinical history and lifestyle in adults older than 18 years by normotensive, diagnosed and undiagnosed hypertension.

Sabaneta, 2022.

Factor Normotensive Diagnosed hypertension Undiagnosed hypertension Total p valuea
  n = 176 % n = 54 % n = 56 % n = 286 %  
Knowledge of health programs                  
Health benefits plan 99 67.3 23 15.6 25 17.0 147 51.4 0.134
Cardiovascular program 44 64.7 15 22.1 9 13.2 68 23.8 0.431
Use of substance
Psychoactive 23 69.7 4 12.1 6 18.2 33 11.5 0.735
Tobacco 26 70.3 7 18.9 4 10.8 37 12.9 0.334
Alcohol 114 66.3 27 15.7 31 18.0 172 60.1 0.109
Food
Vegetable oil 162 61.8 48 18.3 52 19.8 262 91.6 0.653
At least 7 fruits a week 63 58.9 21 19.6 23 21.5 107 37.4 0.571
At least 7 vegetables per week 92 63.9 28 19.4 24 16.7 144 50.3 0.432
Comorbidity
Diabetes 16 44.4 16 44.4 4 11.1 36 12.6 0.003
Dyslipidemia 41 50.6 29 35.8 11 13.6 81 28.3 0.001
Heart attack 13 59.1 8 36.4 1 4.5 22 7.7 0.036
Sedentary
Active 61 70.9 4 4.7 21 24.4 86 30.1 0.001
Sedentary 92 57.9 36 22.6 31 19.5 159 55.6
BMI
Normal 83 71.6 16 13.8 17 14.7 116 40.6 0.009
Overweight 71 59.2 23 19.2 26 21.7 120 42.0
Obesity 22 44.0 15 30.0 13 26.0 50 17.5
Abdominal obesity 52 49.1 33 31.1 21 19.8 106 37.1 0.000

a: chi-square test of association

BMI: Body Mass Index

The results from adjusted multinomial logistic regression models for predicting both diagnosed and undiagnosed hypertension, compared with normotensive, are presented in Table 3. Individuals under 60 were 55.0% less likely to be diagnosed with HTN than older adults (RRR = 0.45 [95% CI: 0.35–0.57]). This age group was also less likely to have undiagnosed hypertension (RRR = 0.68 [95% CI: 0.53–0.86]). Possessing prior comorbidities and being physically active decreased the probability of being diagnosed with HTN by 55% and 65%, respectively. Those with elementary and high school education had significantly higher rates of both diagnosed and undiagnosed hypertension than those with university/postgraduate degrees. BMI plays a crucial role in the diagnosis and presence of undiagnosed hypertension. Specifically, having obesity increased the risk of undiagnosed hypertension by 1.25 times (RRR = 2.25 [95% CI: 1.63–3.11]), while being overweight amplified the risk by 70% (RRR = 1.70 [95% CI: 1.34–2.15]). Lastly, having a prior comorbidity and being physically active raised the chances of having undiagnosed hypertension by 42% and 52%, respectively.

Table 3. A multinomial regression model of associated factors of diagnosed and undiagnosed hypertension in adults over 18 years.

Sabaneta, 2022.

Factor Diagnosed hypertension vs. Normotensive Undiagnosed hypertension vs. Normotensive
  RRR 95% CI—RRR p value RRR 95% CI—RRR p value
< 60 years (ref: >60) 0.45 0.35–0.57 0.000 0.68 0.53–0.86 0.001
Education level (ref: University / postgrad)
Elementary school 1.83 1.26–2.67 0.002 1.75 1.27–2.42 0.001
High school 2.03 1.34–3.00 0.000 1.33 0.95–1.86 0.094
Technical or technological 1.25 0.79–1.98 0.334 0.86 0.57–1.30 0.484
Previous diagnosis of dyslipidemia or diabetes (ref: Yes) 0.45 0.36–0.56 0.000 1.42 1.12–1.82 0.004
Active (Perez Rojas Test) (ref: inactive) 0.35 0.26–0.47 0.000 1.52 1.22–1.89 0.000
BMI (ref: normal)
Obesity 2.49 1.83–3.40 0.000 2.25 1.63–3.11 0.000
Overweight 1.12 0.86–1.45 0.412 1.70 1.34–2.15 0.000

Adjusted by sex—AIC for adjusted model: 4681,305—AIC for null model: 6462,292—LR chi2(20) = 528.90; prob>chi2 = 0.000; pseudo R2 = 0.1024—BMI: Body Mass Index -

Discussion

The study aimed to estimate the prevalence of undiagnosed hypertension and its associated factors in individuals aged 18 and above in a Colombian municipality. The prevalence rates for hypertension and undiagnosed hypertension stood at 38.5% and 50.9%, respectively. In the present study, individuals who had completed either elementary or high school, had no chronic diseases, were physically active, and were either obesity or overweight were more inclined to be unaware of their hypertensive status.

The prevalence observed in this study (38.5%) surpassed both the national and global averages of 24.0% and 30.0% respectively [3, 11, 32], but was consistent with rates in Latin America. Research from 2019, encompassing 33,276 participants from six Latin American nations, reported an HTN prevalence of 44.0%. The lowest rates were found in Peru (17.7%) and the highest in Brazil (52.5%); further, a mere 58.9% were cognizant of their HTN diagnosis [33].

Regarding the prevalence of undiagnosed hypertension (50.9%) among the hypertensive populace, discrepancies emerge between studies that depend on clinical registries or surveillance systems. This is evident when comparing data from the U.S. (7.0% undiagnosed HTN) [21] and China (28.8%) [34]. However, these figures align closely with findings from representative, population-based studies typically conducted outside the Americas, which reported between 50.4% to 69.0% undiagnosed HTN [1619]. This was on par with results from Malaysia (51.6%) [17] and Bangladesh (50.1%) [19]; however, there was a notable discrepancy in Africa (69.8%) [18], and nearly double the prevalence in Nepal (34.1%) [4]. Our results surpass recent data on undiagnosed hypertension in Latin America (which ranged from 24% to 47%) [20], yet remain below Peru’s reported figure (67.0%) [22]. It becomes evident that roughly half of individuals with hypertension remain oblivious to their condition, a phenomenon termed the "rule of halves", which holds true across various populations.

Variability in the type of sample or source data might account for the differences observed in the prevalence of both hypertension and its undiagnosed counterpart. Many nationwide surveys in Latin America rely on self-reports or lack serial blood pressure (BP) measurements, potentially leading to underestimation of prevalence rates [5, 33]. Truly population-based estimates are scant [18, 19]. Often, such estimates lean on secondary sources like clinical registries, epidemiological surveillance data, or national surveys (e.g., demographic and health surveys) [14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 35], each tailored for unique objectives. Such sources might not aptly represent the at-risk population.

There are other conceivable factors contributing to the elevated prevalence of undiagnosed HTN. One such factor is the general unawareness surrounding routine blood pressure screening. The frequency of BP measurements directly correlates with awareness of hypertension, a crucial element for diagnosis [4, 19]. Evidently, and as this study demonstrates, the prevalence of undiagnosed hypertension remains stubbornly high over recent decades [12, 20, 22]. The stagnant state of HTN awareness and screening over the years is alarming. It underscores the inadequacy of current methods used to detect HTN, even though BP measurements are straightforward and cost-effective. Addressing arterial hypertension is an ongoing challenge in this region [12], with Primary Health Care (PHC) being pivotal in early detection. Public health initiatives should prioritize the prevention, detection, treatment, and comprehensive cardiovascular risk management.

While the broader population should be the primary target for HTN detection and management within primary health care, our findings indicate that specific subgroups -notably those without chronic diseases, who are physically active, have only an elementary education, or had obesity or overweight—are at a heightened risk for undiagnosed HTN. This calls for an intensified focus on these demographics. Earlier studies have identified similar risk factors [18, 22, 34]. Such trends could be attributed to the likelihood of individuals with chronic ailments or comorbidities seeking medical care more frequently, thus increasing the odds of an HTN diagnosis [13, 18]. Conversely, highly active individuals might perceive themselves as less susceptible to chronic illnesses, thereby paying less attention to their health [14]. Some research [14, 18] has even established a positive link between intense physical activity and undiagnosed HTN.

In alignment with the findings of this study and various other studies [14, 19, 22, 34], factors linked to healthcare needs and inversely associated with undiagnosed HTN include conditions like dyslipidemia and diabetes. Individuals without chronic conditions tend to access health services less frequently, thereby reducing the chances of undergoing a blood pressure assessment [1, 6]. On the other hand, while those who are overweight might recognize their health issues [1, 6, 18], they might view health facilities as judgmental environments, leading them to steer clear of medical counsel. A population-centric study highlighted that individuals who are overweight or who suffer from obesity are doubly prone to remain undiagnosed [36].

Previous studies have been ambivalent about the influence of education on the diagnosis of hypertension [36]. Yet, our research identified a heightened risk of undiagnosed hypertension among individuals with only elementary education (when juxtaposed against those with professional qualifications). Certain researchers have pointed out that less educated individuals tend to have a greater prevalence of undiagnosed hypertension [17]. This discrepancy can potentially be attributed to disparities in health education access, risk perception, and the ease with which higher-educated individuals can access health services.

In conclusion, while hypertension is widespread among the elderly, its undiagnosed variant tends to surge with advancing age. Echoing prior studies, our data reaffirmed that older individuals are at an amplified risk of unrecognized hypertension [14, 18, 36]. Nonetheless, some researchers have indicated that younger adults frequently remain oblivious of their hypertensive condition [18]. Past studies have posited that those aged 50 and above exhibit a diminished prevalence of undiagnosed hypertension [4, 15, 22]. Contrarily, our findings suggest that advancing age diminishes the chances of undiagnosed hypertension. This sentiment has found support in other research, which documented a risk decrement of roughly 35% [18]. Furthermore, investigations employing multinomial models (with normotensive individuals as the reference category) have deduced that adults younger than 30 are less prone to undiagnosed hypertension [36].

Existing research indicates that recent interactions with health services, possession of health insurance, or undergoing health screenings correlate with a reduction in undiagnosed HTN cases [4, 15, 18, 22, 34]. Engaging with health services can potentially optimize outcomes throughout the hypertension care process [4], encompassing the stages of hypertension screening, awareness, treatment, and management. Nonetheless, our current study does not provide data to elucidate this association.

There is mounting evidence that contemporary prevention and control tactics are coming up short. A more strategic, holistic, and long-lasting solution is urgently required to diminish the toll of CVD and bolster the resilience of healthcare infrastructures. PHC emerges as a pivotal force in streamlining the hypertension care continuum [12, 37]. In LMICs, including countries like Colombia, there’s a noticeable deficit in preventive and screening cultures, leading people to seek medical attention predominantly when symptoms manifest. This could explain why these nations report an alarming 75.0% prevalence rate of hypertension [1, 6]. Health models rooted in the PHC approach could serve as an effective conduit to early hypertension detection services. A notable initiative in the Americas in this context is the introduction of the HEARTS Project [12, 37].

Initiatives such as the HEARTS program underscore a paradigm shift. In this renewed model, hypertension management and CVD prevention aren’t exclusively tethered to secondary or tertiary care tiers but are integrated into the primary care framework [12, 37]. The program also champions an educational model for the PHC team, ensuring they possess a thorough understanding of their communities, patients, and surrounding circumstances. Additionally, it introduces innovative engagement methods, like telemonitoring [12, 25, 38]. Yet, this model is not without its challenges, particularly in reaching out to those who do not actively seek medical services. Consequently, it is imperative to extend beyond traditional medical facilities, fostering strong community ties and embracing localized health narratives by incorporating community liaisons and external strategies. A uniform methodology for participant selection, blood pressure assessment, data quality assurance, and analysis is equally crucial. In the final analysis, there’s an urgent need for research endeavors to devise and deploy impactful, fair, and enduring evidence-informed interventions and global health policies, aiming squarely at mitigating the overarching impact of hypertension [6].

The study presented several limitations. Firstly, due to the cross-sectional design, it wasn’t possible to infer causality. Secondly, relying on self-reported data, such as diagnosed hypertension, might introduce recall bias. Thirdly, family history was not factored in as a covariate. Fourthly, blood pressure in the study was measured three times during physical examinations, deviating from the Hypertension Clinical Practice Guidelines that recommend an average of ≥2 readings obtained on ≥2 separate occasions [25]. Fifthly, although the desired sample size was not achieved, it is noteworthy that the attrition rate stood at a modest 6.5% (n = 20). Additionally, considering the actual hypertension prevalence observed in this study (38.5%), the precision amounted to 5.6. Thus, the concluding sample of 286 participants did not markedly compromise the estimate’s accuracy, an essential metric in prevalence research. Regardless of these constraints, our study carved a niche for itself. It utilized a population-based sample that mirrors the adult demographic across the municipality, meticulously analyzed the risk factors tied to undiagnosed hypertension, and furnished insights to guide forthcoming hypertension prevention initiatives.

To wrap up, the prevalence rates of hypertension and its undiagnosed variant remain alarmingly high, posing considerable challenges not just to Colombia but also to the broader Americas. There is an urgent call for national and regional public health campaigns to augment hypertension detection, raise awareness, and bolster its treatment and management in Colombia and across Latin America. By directing mass screening efforts towards the demographics most affected, enhancing access to quality care within primary public health establishments, and rolling out community-based interventions, we can effectively tackle the obstacles impeding early hypertension screening.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. STROBE statement—Checklist.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This study was funded by the San Martin University Foundation (PYI-2020-025).

References

  • 1.Mills K, Stefanescu A, He J. The global epidemiology of hypertension. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2020;16(4):223–37. doi: 10.1038/s41581-019-0244-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.GBD 2017 Causes of Death Collaborators. Global, regional, and national age-sex-specific mortality for 282 causes of death in 195 countries and territories, 1980–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2018;392(10159):1736–88. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32203-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Forouzanfar MH, Liu P, Roth GA, Ng M, Biryukov S, Marczak L, et al. Global Burden of Hypertension and Systolic Blood Pressure of at Least 110 to 115 mm Hg, 1990–2015. JAMA. 2017;317(2):165–82. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.19043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Dhungana R, Pedisic Z, Dhimal M, Bista B, Courten M. Hypertension screening, awareness, treatment, and control: a study of their prevalence and associated factors in a nationally representative sample fron Nepal. Global Health Action. 2022;15(1):2000092. doi: 10.1080/16549716.2021.2000092 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Geldsetzer P, Manne-Goehler J, Marcus ME, Ebert C, Zhumadilov Z, Wesseh CS, et al. The state of hypertension care in 44 low-income and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study of nationally representative individual-level data from 1·1 million adults. Lancet. 2019;394(10199):652–62. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30955-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Mills K, Bundy J, Kelly T, Reed J, Kearney P, Reynolds K, et al. Global Disparities of hypertension prevalence and control: A systematic analysis of population-based studies dfrom 90 countries. Circulation. 2016;134(6):441–50. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.018912 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.NCD Risk Factor Collaboration (NCD-RisC). Worldwide trends in blood pressure from 1975 to 2015: a pooled analysis of 1479 population-based measurement studies with 19·1 million participants. Lancet. 2017;389(10064):37–55. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31919-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gaziano TA, Bitton A, Anand S, Weinstein MC, Hypertension ISo. The global cost of nonoptimal blood pressure. J Hypertens. 2009;27(7):1472–7. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e32832a9ba3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Manrique-Abril FG, Herrera-Amaya GM, Manrique-Abril RA, Beltrán-Morera J. [Costs of a primary health care program for the management of high blood pressure in Colombia]. Rev Salud Publica (Bogota). 2018;20(4):465–71. doi: 10.15446/rsap.V20n4.64679 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Martinez R, Soliz P, Campbell NRC, Lackland DT, Whelton PK, Ordunez P. Association between population hypertension control and ischemic heart disease and stroke mortality in 36 countries of the Americas, 1990–2019: an ecological study. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2022;46:e143. doi: 10.26633/RPSP.2022.143 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.NCD Risk Factor Collaboration (NCD-RisC). Worldwide trends in hypertension prevalence and progress in treatment and control from 1990 to 2019: a pooled analysis of 1201 population-representative studies with 104 million participants. Lancet. 2021;398(10304):957–80. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01330-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Sosa Liprandi Á, Baranchuk A, López-Santi R, Wyss F, Piskorz D, Puente A, et al. [Control of arterial hypertension: a pending issueControle da hipertensão arterial: um assunto inacabado]. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2022;46:e147. doi: 10.26633/RPSP.2022.147 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Martinez R, Soliz P, Mujica OJ, Reveiz L, Campbell NRC, Ordunez P. The slowdown in the reduction rate of premature mortality from cardiovascular diseases puts the Americas at risk of achieving SDG 3.4: A population trend analysis of 37 countries from 1990 to 2017. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2020;22(8):1296–309. doi: 10.1111/jch.13922 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hasan MM, Tasnim F, Tariqujjaman M, Ahmed S, Cleary A, Mamun A. Examining the prevalence, correlates and inequalities of undiagnosed hypertension in Nepal: a population-based cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(10):e037592. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037592 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ntenda PAM, El-Meidany WMR, Tiruneh FN, Motsa MPS, Nyirongo J, Chirwa GC, et al. Determinants of self-reported hypertension among women in South Africa: evidence from the population-based survey. Clin Hypertens. 2022;28(1):39. doi: 10.1186/s40885-022-00222-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kothavale A, Puri P, Yadav S. The burden of hypertension and unmet need for hypertension care among men aged 15–54 years: a population-based cross-sectional study in India. J Biosoc Sci. 2022;54(6):1078–99. doi: 10.1017/S0021932021000481 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Lim OW, Yong CC. The Risk Factors for Undiagnosed and Known Hypertension among Malaysians. Malays J Med Sci. 2019;26(5):98–112. doi: 10.21315/mjms2019.26.5.9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Pengpid S, Peltzer K. Prevalence and associated factors of undiagnosed hypertension among adults in the Central African Republic. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):19007. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-23868-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Haider MR, Gupta RD. Inequalities in Undiagnosed Hypertension Among Adult Population in Bangladesh: Evidence from a Nationally Representative Survey. High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev. 2022;29(1):57–64. doi: 10.1007/s40292-021-00488-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Hernández-Hernández R, Silva H, Velasco M, Pellegrini F, Macchia A, Escobedo J, et al. Hypertension in seven Latin American cities: the Cardiovascular Risk Factor Multiple Evaluation in Latin America (CARMELA) study. J Hypertens. 2010;28(1):24–34. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e328332c353 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Park S, Gillespie C, Baumgardner J, Yang Q, Valderrama AL, Fang J, et al. Modeled state-level estimates of hypertension prevalence and undiagnosed hypertension among US adults during 2013–2015. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2018;20(10):1395–410. doi: 10.1111/jch.13388 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Guerrero-Díaz DV, Hernández-Vásquez A, Montoya-Rivera WC, Rojas-Roque C, Chacón Díaz MA, Bendezu-Quispe G. Undiagnosed hypertension in Peru: analysis of associated factors and socioeconomic inequalities, 2019. Heliyon. 2021;7(7):e07516. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07516 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística (DANE). Serie municipal de población por sexo y edad para el periodo 2005–2019. Bogotá, D.C: DANE; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.The sixth report of the Joint National Committee on prevention, detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood pressure. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157(21):2413–46. doi: 10.1001/archinte.157.21.2413 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Unger T, Borghi C, Charchar F, Khan N, Poulter N, Prabhakaran D, et al. Clinical Practice Guidelines: 2020 International Society of Hypertension Global Hypertension Practice Guidelines. AHA Journal. 2020;75:1334–57. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.15026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The seventh report of the join national committe on prevention, detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood pressure (JNC 7). 2003. Contract No.: 1206. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS). Método progresivo de la OMS para la vigilancia de los factores de riesgo de las enfermedades crónicas (STEPS). OMS; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Pérez A, Suárez R, García G, Espinosa A, Linares D. Test de clasificación de sedentarismo, propuesta y validación estadística. La Habana, Cuba: Universidad de Cienfuegos; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Alfonso-Mora M, Vidarte-Claros J, Vélez-Álvarez C, Sandoval-Cuéllar C. Prevalencia de sedentarismo y factores asociados, en personas de 18 a 60 años en Tunja-Colombia. Rev Fac Med. 2013;61:3–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Prenissl J, Manne-Goehler J, Jaacks L, et al. Hypertension screening, awareness, treatment, and control in India: a nationally representative cross-sectional study among individuals aged 15 to 49 years. Plos Med. 2019;16(5):e1002801. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002801 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.República de Colombia, Ministerio de Salud. Resolución 8430 de 1993, "Por la cuál se establecen las normas científicas, técnicas y administrativas para la investigación en salud". 1993. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Zurique-Sánchez M, Zurique-Sánchez C, Camacho-López P, Sánchez-Sanabria M, Hernández-Hernández S. Prevalencia de hipertensión arterial en Colombia. Revisión sistemática y metaanálisis. Acta Med Colomb. 2019;44(4):20–33. 10.36104/amc.2019.1293 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Lamelas P, Diaz R, Orlandini A, Avezum A, Oliveira G, Mattos A, et al. Prevalence, awareness, treatment and control of hypertension in rural and urban communities in Latin American countries. J Hypertens. 2019;37(9):1813–21. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000002108 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Zhou J, Fang S. Association between Undiagnosed Hypertension and Health Factors among Middle-Aged and Elderly Chinese Population. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(7). doi: 10.3390/ijerph16071214 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ahmed S, Tariqujjaman M, Rahman MA, Hasan MZ, Hasan MM. Inequalities in the prevalence of undiagnosed hypertension among Bangladeshi adults: evidence from a nationwide survey. Int J Equity Health. 2019;18(1):33. doi: 10.1186/s12939-019-0930-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Hossain A, Suhel SA, Chowdhury SR, Islam S, Akther N, Dhor NR, et al. Hypertension and undiagnosed hypertension among Bangladeshi adults: Identifying prevalence and associated factors using a nationwide survey. Front Public Health. 2022;10:1066449. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1066449 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Ordunez P, Campbell NRC, Giraldo Arcila GP, Angell SY, Lombardi C, Brettler JW, et al. [HEARTS in the Americas: innovations for improving hypertension and cardiovascular disease risk management in primary careHEARTS nas Américas: inovações para melhorar a gestão do risco de hipertensão e de doenças cardiovasculares na atenção primária]. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2022;46:e197. doi: 10.26633/RPSP.2022.197 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Hammersley V, Parker R, Paterson M, Hanley J, Pinnock H, Padfield P, et al. Telemonitoring at scale for hypertension in primary care: An implementation study. PLos Med. 2020;17(6):1–19. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003124 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Bruno Pereira Nunes

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

5 Jul 2023

PONE-D-23-08509BURDEN OF UNDIAGNOSTIC HYPERTENSION ANN ASSOCIATED FACTORS: A CHALLENGE FOR PRIMARY HEALTH CAREPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Salazar Flórez,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. The manuscript has been reassessed by one reviewer. The comments are appended below. The reviewer observe major concerns about the manuscript, and in particular they feel that important methodological issues exist that affect the technical soundness of your study, and the conclusions of the paper. We request authors to conduct a detailed review of the comments. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 19 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Bruno Pereira Nunes, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the Methods section, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

This study was funded by the San Martin University Foundation (PY-2020-025).

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. 

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Although the manuscript focused on a topic of public health importance, it needs major revision as follows:

1. The English language needs professional editing throughout the manuscript.

2. The title does not make sense. The word “undiagnostic” in the title should be replaced by "undiagnosed". The title should include the geographical area of the study population. Suggested title may be "Burden of undiagnosed hypertension and its associated factors: A challenge for primary health care in urban Colombia"

3. The words “undiagnosed” and “unscreened” were used interchangeably in the manuscript. I suggest using either the word "undiagnosed" or "unscreened" consistently across the manuscript. I prefer “undiagnosed”.

4. In the method section use the geographical areas from where the study population were selected clearly.

5. The authors used words like “incidence” (sentence 168); Risk Ratio (sentence 169); incidence rate ratio (sentence 174) which are wrong for this study as it is a cross-sectional study.

6. The primary dependent variable for this study is undiagnosed hypertension. However, the authors primarily focused on all hypertension (both diagnosed and undiagnosed) in all analyses. My observation and suggestion are as follows:

i. 38.5% is the overall prevalence of hypertension and half (50.9%) of them are unscreened. So, there are three categories of participants in respect to hypertension: 1) Normotensive, 2) undiagnosed hypertensive, and 3) diagnosed hypertensive. I suggest using a multinomial logistic regression with three category outcome to identify the associated factors of undiagnosed hypertension with normotensive as the reference category.

7. As the number of “no formal education” is low (Table 1), add them with primary education category.

8. In table 2, number of the normal BMI is missing.

9. In sentence 265, the authors mentioned the prevalence of undiagnosed hypertension is 50.9%. I guess this is the prevalence of undiagnosed hypertension among the hypertensive population. Be sure of it.

10. In the figure 1, the authors classified the hypertensive status as “unscreened”, “unaware”, “untreated”, “uncontrolled”, and “health risk”. However, these are not shown in the results, although these are important.

11. Figure 2 is not clear at all. The figure color and legend captions are not related. Either make it clear or delete it.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dipak Kumar Mitra

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-08509_reviewer_dm.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments of the manuscript-PONE-D-23-08509_reviewer_dm.docx

PLoS One. 2023 Nov 28;18(11):e0294177. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294177.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


24 Aug 2023

Dear Dr. Bruno Pereira Nunes,

Thank you for considering our manuscript "BURDEN OF UNDIAGNOSTIC HYPERTENSION ANN ASSOCIATED FACTORS: A CHALLENGE FOR PRIMARY HEALTH CARE" for publication in PLOS ONE and for the feedback provided.

We greatly appreciate the time and effort the reviewer(s) and the academic editor dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. We have thoroughly addressed each of the comments and concerns raised and believe that the revisions have significantly improved the quality and clarity of the paper.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

Decision Letter 1

Bruno Pereira Nunes

19 Oct 2023

PONE-D-23-08509R1BURDEN OF UNDIAGNOSED HYPERTENSION AND ITS ASSOCIATED FACTORS: A CHALLENGE FOR PRIMARY HEALTH CARE IN URBAN COLOMBIAPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Salazar Flórez,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. The manuscript has been reassessed by two reviewers. The comments are appended below. We request authors to conduct a review of the comments providing detailed answers. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 03 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Bruno Pereira Nunes, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Please check the use of HTN (sometimes HNT is used in error).

Please clarify education level, it sometimes reads as the level of current education, but you maximum leel of education gained. Phrases such as 'people in primary school' can be misleading.

It would be nice to add a reference for the population projection (DANE).

Lines 316/317 - I am not sure you mean less health conscious, but maybe they feel they are healthier and probably are healthier so less likley to get checked or screened? I agree with the latter part that they are less susceptible to other diseases.

Line 371 - be more explicit. Familiy history was not accounted for as a covariate?

Reviewer #3: Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript “Burden of undiagnosed hypertension and its associated factors: a challenge for primary health care in urban Colombia”.

The introduction is to long, almost 3 pages. I suggest you be more succinct.

It doesn't make sense for the sentence "Health policymakers might require such empirical evidence to create targeted strategies for controlling HTN both in the country and the world" to be after the objectives. It fits in with the discussion rather than the introduction.

The sample size is not adequate given that at least 306 participants were supposed to be interviewed (not counting the 10% that is recommended to be added for losses and refusals), and only 286 were interviewed.

Please check all manuscript and avoid sentences like "hypertensive participants". Change to "participants with hypertension". The same for obese, avoid “were obese or overweight”. Instead, use had obesity of overweight.

In general, the manuscript provides interesting results that show a high rate of underdiagnosed cases of hypertension. The failure to reach 100% of the sample calculation needs to be discussed as a limitation. Pejorative terms such as hypertensive people and obese people need to be revised throughout the text. I would also suggest a grammatical review of the English, I believe that some sentences could be rewritten for better understanding.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Holly Pavey

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Nov 28;18(11):e0294177. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294177.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


23 Oct 2023

Colombia, October 20th, 2023

Emily Chenette

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS ONE

Dear Editor Chenette and Reviewers,

We would like to extend our heartfelt gratitude for your constructive comments. They have played a pivotal role in refining our presentation of findings on this significant public health matter. Our responses to your observations are delineated below, and the corresponding changes within the manuscript are highlighted in yellow.

Reviewer 2: Comments Reply

Please check the use of HTN (sometimes HNT is used in error).

The acronym has been consistently standardized to "HTN" throughout the document. Please clarify education level, it sometimes reads as the level of current education, but you maximum level of education gained. Phrases such as 'people in primary school' can be misleading.

We have made it clear that we refer to the highest level of education attained.

It would be nice to add a reference for the population projection (DANE).

The DANE reference has now been incorporated. Lines 316/317 - I am not sure you mean less health conscious, but maybe they feel they are healthier and probably are healthier so less likley to get checked or screened? I agree with the latter part that they are less susceptible to other diseases.

We meant to indicate that individuals who exercise regularly often feel healthier and thus may be less concerned about regular check-ups. This has been clarified in the text.

Line 371 - be more explicit. Family history was not accounted for as a covariate?

We have made it explicit that family history was not included as a covariate.

Reviewer 3: Comments Reply

The introduction is to long, almost 3 pages. I suggest you be more succinct.

We've condensed the introduction for succinctness. It doesn't make sense for the sentence "Health policymakers might require such empirical evidence to create targeted strategies for controlling HTN both in the country and the world" to be after the objectives. It fits in with the discussion rather than the introduction.

The mentioned sentence has been relocated as suggested.

The sample size is not adequate given that at least 306 participants were supposed to be interviewed (not counting the 10% that is recommended to be added for losses and refusals), and only 286 were interviewed.

We have addressed the sample size limitation in the discussion. Please check all manuscript and avoid sentences like "hypertensive participants". Change to "participants with hypertension". The same for obese, avoid “were obese or overweight”. Instead, use had obesity of overweight.

Changes have been made to avoid pejorative terms, and the suggested terminologies are adopted.

In general, the manuscript provides interesting results that show a high rate of underdiagnosed cases of hypertension. The failure to reach 100% of the sample calculation needs to be discussed as a limitation. Pejorative terms such as hypertensive people and obese people need to be revised throughout the text. I would also suggest a grammatical review of the English, I believe that some sentences could be rewritten for better understanding.

We appreciate the feedback. The manuscript underwent thorough proofreading by a native English speaker, ensuring clarity and grammatical correctness.

Yours sincerely,

________________________

Jorge Emilio Salazar Florez

Research center coordinator

San Martin University Foundation, Sabaneta, Colombia

________________________

Ángela Patricia Echeverri

Student of medicine

San Martin University Foundation, Sabaneta, Colombia

________________________

Luz Stella Giraldo Cardona

Professor

San Martin University Foundation, Sabaneta, Colombia

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

Decision Letter 2

Bruno Pereira Nunes

27 Oct 2023

BURDEN OF UNDIAGNOSED HYPERTENSION AND ITS ASSOCIATED FACTORS: A CHALLENGE FOR PRIMARY HEALTH CARE IN URBAN COLOMBIA

PONE-D-23-08509R2

Dear Dr. Salazar Flórez,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Bruno Pereira Nunes, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Thank you for addressing the comments, I am happy that the suggested comments have been addressed and changes mafe to the manuscript and therefore the manuscript has been much improved.

Reviewer #3: The authors made corrections and suggestions throughout the text. I now consider the manuscript approved for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Felipe Delpino

**********

Acceptance letter

Bruno Pereira Nunes

14 Nov 2023

PONE-D-23-08509R2

BURDEN OF UNDIAGNOSED HYPERTENSION AND ITS ASSOCIATED FACTORS: A CHALLENGE FOR PRIMARY HEALTH CARE IN URBAN COLOMBIA

Dear Dr. Salazar Flórez:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Bruno Pereira Nunes

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. STROBE statement—Checklist.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-08509_reviewer_dm.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments of the manuscript-PONE-D-23-08509_reviewer_dm.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES