Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2024 Oct 16;19(10):e0312186. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312186

Prevalence of hypertension and factors associated with the utilization of primary health care services for hypertension among hypertensive population aged 40 years and above in Pyin Oo Lwin Township, Myanmar

May Sabai Soe 1,¤,*, Su Su Hlaing 2, Aye Sandar Mon 3, Kyaw Thu Lynn 1
Editor: Kyaw Lwin Show4
PMCID: PMC11482684  PMID: 39413085

Abstract

Background

Utilization of hypertension services at primary health care levels has not been assessed at township level, since launching of PEN interventions in Myanmar. This study aimed to determine the factors associating with the utilization of primary health care services for hypertension among 40 years and above hypertensive population.

Methods

Community-based cross-sectional study was done in Pyin Oo Lwin Township, 2023. Multi stage sampling was conducted to recruit 40 years and above participants; response rate was 85%. Joint National Committee (JNC7) classification was used to define hypertension. Among hypertensive participants, descriptive analysis, Chi squared test and multiple logistic models were conducted, with a significance level of 0.05.

Results

Out of 1001 screening participants, prevalence of hypertension was 38.6% (386). Among 386 participants, 51.8% (200) utilized primary health care services provided by public health facilities. Rural residents (AOR = 2.79, CI = 1.68, 4.67), known hypertension (AOR = 4.36, CI = 2.39, 8.23), good perception on hypertension (AOR = 0.30, CI = 0.14, 0.62), perceived cost of travel as necessary (AOR = 0.57, CI = 0.35, 0.92) and awareness of available services (AOR = 4.11, CI = 2.55, 6.71) were associated with the utilization of primary health care services for hypertension.

Conclusion

This study provided context-specific scientific evidence to tackle existing problems of low utilization of PHC services for hypertension. Strengthening health care infrastructure for quality hypertension care at primary health care level was also recommended.

Introduction

Hypertension, one of the non-communicable diseases (NCDs), is a major risk factors for cardiovascular diseases (CVD): ischemic heart disease, heart failure and stroke [1]. Myanmar has experienced increasing disease burden of hypertension and its related mortality [24].

As primary health care (PHC) is patient-centered, community-based and sustainable, implementation of interventions for chronic diseases like hypertension is feasible and applicable at primary care level [5]. Most patients with hypertension can be managed appropriately with simplified standard protocols at the primary health care facilities [6]. Since PHC serves as the first entry point to the health system, utilization of the PHC services results great outcomes, efficiency, accessibility and cost-effectiveness [5,7,8].

In Myanmar, public hospitals are mainly equipped for inpatients, overcrowded and understaffed enough to provide primary care for high volume of out-patients [9,10]. Meanwhile, PHC facilities serve as first service points, make risk-based approach to filter patients and reduce overflow to already loaded public hospitals [11]. As for private facilities, cost-effectiveness and accessibility to health services are jeopardized, when patients are charged even for primary health care services with direct out-of-pocket (OOP) payment [10,12].

To tackle various problems related to hypertension, Myanmar has adopted the package of essential non-communicable disease intervention in primary health care project (PEN project) to decentralize NCD care in primary health care settings [13]. PEN intervention was implemented through basic health staff (BHS) of public health facilities for major NCDs, including hypertension. They provide population-wide and individual-based interventions for hypertension which include screening for diagnosis and treating with affordable technologies and medications; and referring patients with complications to nearest secondary hospitals [14]. Thereafter, blood pressure measurement and essential medicines for hypertension were generally available in primary health care facilities of the public sector [15].

However, the prevalence of hypertension and uncontrolled hypertension have not met yet with the global target [1]. Prevention and control services for hypertension are still underutilized; despite Ministry of health of Myanmar emphasize on service availability and readiness for hypertension through implementation of PEN guidelines [2,16].

Since launching PEN project, utilization of hypertension services has not been assessed at township levels. Addressing demand-side determinants of the utilization would help formulate policies to improve the uptake of health services, particularly in underutilized areas. Although globally generated protocols were provided in formulating policy and strategies, PHC-oriented research were needed to synthesize country-specific evidence-based decisions to ensure delivery of quality and safe PHC services.

To generate such evidence, we conducted this study regarding to the utilization of PHC services concentrating on hypertension, and in particular those targeted at the population level. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the prevalence of hypertension, find out proportion of public primary health care services utilization for hypertension and determine the factors associating with the utilization of PHC services among the hypertensive population aged 40 years and above in Pyin Oo Lwin Township, Myanmar.

Materials and methods

Study design

A community-based cross-sectional study was carried out in Pyin Oo Lwin Township, Myanmar during September—November, 2023. Pyin Oo Lwin lies in the northeast of Mandalay Region in the central plain area of Myanmar. Approximately 220,000 population is covered by: one township public health department under which one maternal and child health care center (MCH), seven rural health centers (RHCs) and twenty-nine sub-rural health centers (Sub-RHCs); two station hospitals; and one district hospital.

Basic health staff are positioned in health facilities under township public health department. With PEN expansion, almost all of the basic health staff of Pyin Oo Lwin Township Public Health Department have got cascade training to provide NCD control and care to the population. Trainings about the interventions of PEN protocols are limited to Ministry of Health [17]. So, essential NCDs care services embodied at primary health care level (PEN protocols) are provided by public PHC facilities.

Sample size

The sample size was estimated using 95% confidence interval, an acceptable error (alpha) of 5%, margin of error 4% and the prevalence of utilization of primary health care facilities for hypertension was 88% [11].

n=z²pqd²=1.9620.88(0.12)(0.04)²=254290(including15%non-responserate)

So, the minimum required sample size to interview was estimated as 290.

According to WHO base line estimates used in national strategic plan for NCDs (2017–2021) Myanmar, hypertension prevalence was 28.9% [16]. To find out the number of at least 290 hypertensive population, approximately 1001 participants needed to be screened.

n=29028.9×1001001

After screening the study participants, 386 participants were found to be hypertensive and all were taken for interviews.

Study population and sampling procedure

A multistage sampling was used to select a representative sample of 40 years and above populations from the community. According to the urban-rural ratio (3:7) of the population of the township [18], 3 out of 10 wards were randomly selected as urban. There were 7 RHCs which covered the population from rural areas in the township. One village under the catchment area of each RHC was randomly selected as rural. Secondly, households which had 40 years and above population were listed from selected 3 wards and 7 villages. Thereafter, 100 households each were randomly selected from the household lists, resulting 300 households from urban and 700 households from rural.

While visiting the community, households that were refused to participate were excluded. Absent households were re-visited a second time on the same day to ensure maximum participation but refused households were not visited again. While experiencing vacant households, they were replaced with the most nearby households on the right and not previously selected, which had at least 40 years and above household member. A total of 54 households were replaced. From all consented households, all 40 years and above household members were recruited for screening of high blood pressure after excluding those who were seriously ill, pregnant, unable to communicate (unable to listen and talk), unable to consent and unwilling to participate. Total 1183 participants from 810 households responded and 1001 respondents participated in screening.

During screening, after taking a rest for at least 5 minutes blood pressure (BP) was measured twice which was 10 minutes apart, in a sitting position, using WHO certified Omron (HEM-7120) digital BP cuffs and following American Heart Association (AHA) BP measuring guidelines [19]. Hypertension was defined as SBP ≥ 140 mmHg or DBP ≥ 90 mmHg or both at the average of two measurements, or with the self-reported adherence of antihypertensive medication by using Joint National Committee (JNC7) classifications [20]. Among the screening participants (n = 1001), 386 participants were found to be hypertensive. All those hypertensive participants were recruited for face-to-face interviews. At last, 362 participants were included in the final analysis after exclusion of 24 participants with missing information.

Data collection methods and tools

Data collection time was from September 25th, 2023 to November 30th, 2023. Data was collected by using digital BP cuffs and a structured and pre-tested interviewer administered questionnaire developed in Kobo platform. Before the start of data collection, ten auxiliary midwives who were not working in the study area were provided 2-day trainings for data collection, using Kobo collect mobile application and measuring blood pressure systematically following AHA BP measuring guidelines [19].

Questionnaires consisted of two parts: screening questions and interview questions. Screening questions included age, sex, residences, history of hypertension approved by any medical practitioners and adherence to medications at least within 30 days. The second part of the questionnaires were only used for hypertensive participants and included background characteristics, individual health-related, health facility-related and utilization-related questions, which had been developed based on literature and validated questionnaires from other studies [11,21,22].

Questionnaires also included 20 questions about the knowledge on control and complications of hypertension, 10 questions for perception on hypertension and 8 questions for perception on PHC facilities including quality of care and health providers, attitude of health providers, long waiting time, availability of drugs, being treated with or without respect, being in good terms or having relationship with providers. In the knowledge section, every unprompted correct answer was granted 2 points and each prompted correct response was 1 point, prompted incorrect response, 0 point and “Don’t know”, 0 point. For both perception sections, 4-point Likert scale was adopted in which: 1 “Strongly disagree”, 2 “Disagree”, 3 “Agree” and 4 “Strongly agree” for items except for “Increasing salt and sugar intake is beneficial for health” and “Taking treatment regularly can make hypertension a chronic disease” where the scale was reversed. Computed scores were graded into low (<50th percentile), average (50th– 75th percentile) and high levels (above 75th percentile) of knowledge. Both perceptions are classified as poor (<50th percentile), average (50th– 75th percentile) and good (above 75th percentile).

Pre-testing of the questionnaires was carried out with individuals who were not part of the sample in order to validate the understanding and clarity of the items and necessary modifications were performed. During conducting data collection, data set was checked daily to reduce the occurrence of missing and errors.

Outcome measurements

Utilization of primary health care services for hypertension provided at public health facilities is regarded as being screened or treated or taking medication or going follow-up at PHC health facilities or outreach or mobile clinics or by basic health staff within 6 months for hypertension and registered in department patients’ registry.

PHC facilities are public health facilities which are mainly responsible for preventive services and public health activities under Department of Public Health, Ministry of Health, Myanmar, naming urban health center (UHC), maternal and child health center (MCH), rural health center (RHC) and sub-rural health center (Sub-RHCs).

Basic health staff (BHS) are public health staff–public health supervisors 1 and 2, midwives, lady health visitors (LHV), health assistants (HA), township health nurses (THN), township health assistants (THA), and township medical officers (TMO) who are providing all primary health care services at the township level under Ministry of Health.

People who live within the catchment areas of a public health facility, go to those facilities for health services. According to the national guidelines for BHS, patients–who aged 40 years and above come to the facilities or mobile clinics or outreach for any kinds of illness–get BP measured by BHS for screening and get registered into NCDs screening books.

Newly or previously diagnosed hypertensive cases of any ages: who get treatment: visit follow-ups: or get referred to higher level facilities, are summarized daily and entered into lists of hypertension cases–called NCDs registered books.

The outcomes, utilization of PHC services for hypertension, were measured by coinciding patients’ self-report with registered books at the time of collection.

Statistical analysis

The collected data were extracted from kobo collect platform in excel form and exported into statistical software R (4.3.1 version), where data cleaning, editing and coding was done. Exploratory data analysis was performed to check for missing values and influential outliers. After that, all variables were grouped into respective categories. Categorical variables were expressed as frequency (percentage). Chi-squared analyses between the independent variables and the outcome variable were done, for more information, see S1 Table.

Factors having p<0.2 in bivariate analyses were exported to a multiple logistic regression model as full model. Final model was obtained by applying backward elimination method. Variables at the significance level of 0.05 were retained in the final model, for more information, see S2 Table. Assumptions for multicollinearity were checked. There was no collinearity with VIF < 5 between the variables in all models. Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test was passed and Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) method were applied in all models to select the optimum model.

Ethical considerations

This study was conducted through the permission of Institutional Review Board of University of Public Health, Yangon (UPH-IRB (2023/MPH/10)). The data collection was done only after thorough explanation of purpose of the study to participants and obtaining written informed consent. All the resultant hypertensive participants were referred to the nearest primary health care facilities. The confidentiality of the study participants was maintained throughout the data collection. After data collection, the participants were deidentified by removing unnecessary direct identifiers and encoding addresses before analysis.

Results

Prevalence of hypertension

Among 1,001 screening participants, 386 (38.6%) were found to have hypertension. Prevalence of hypertension increased with age. Prevalence of 40–49 years age group was 21.3%; 50–59 years age group, 40.1% and ≥60 years age group, 53.9%. Regarding the gender, 42.4% of male and 36.9% of female had hypertension. Based on urbanity, 41.2% of urban residents and 37.4% of rural residents were hypertensive (Table 1).

Table 1. Age-specific, gender-specific and residence-specific prevalence of hypertension among the study participants (n = 1001).

Variables Hypertension
(n = 386)
No Hypertension
(n = 615)
p-value
Age (years) <0.001
 40–49 76 (21.3%) 280 (78.7%)
 50–59 110 (40.1%) 164 (59.9%)
 >60 200 (53.9%) 171 (46.1%)
Gender 0.1260
 Male 125 (42.4%) 170 (57.6%)
 Female 261 (36.9%) 445 (63.1%)
Place of Residence 0.2875
 Urban 128 (41.2%) 183 (58.8%)
 Rural 258 (37.4%) 432 (62.6%)

Background characteristics

Table 2 showed background characteristics of the study participants. Age of the study participants (n = 386) ranged from 40 years to 91 years. Mean age was 59.8 ± 11.1 years. More than two-thirds of the participants were female, from rural and being currently married. Most of the participants were Burmese, Buddhist, and below high school level in education. Monthly family income was ranging from 10,000 kyats to 2,800,000 kyats. Over two-thirds were having over 150,000 MMK monthly.

Table 2. Background characteristics of the study participants (n = 386).

Variables Frequency (%)
Age group (years) 40–49 76 (19.7%)
50–59 110 (28.5%)
≥ 60 200 (51.8%)
Gender Male 125 (32.3%)
Female 261 (67.7%)
Residence Urban 128 (33.2%)
Rural 258 (66.8%)
Marriage Currently Married 251(65.1%)
Not Currently Married 135 (34.9%)
Education < High School 352 (91.1%)
≥ High school 34 (8.9%)
Occupation Employed 218 (56.5%)
Unemployed 168 (43.5%)
Monthly Family Income (n = 362) ≤150,000 MMK 103 (26.7%)
>150,000 MMK 259 (67.1%)
Ethnicity Bamar 312 (80.8%)
others 74 (19.2%)
Religion Buddhist 374 (96.8%)
Others 12 (3.2%)

MMK = Myanmar Kyat.

Utilization of PHC services for hypertension

Out of 386, 200 participants with hypertension [51.8% (95% CI: 47%-57%)] utilized primary health care services at least once within 6 months. In bivariate analysis, utilization of the services was associated with 8 variables: place of residence; education; social or financial support; known status of hypertension; perception on hypertension; presence of public health facilities in their villages or wards; perceived cost of travel to their nearest public health facilities; and awareness of available hypertension services provided at public health facilities. Knowledge about control of hypertension and perception on public health facilities had no association with the outcomes. All responded that they were convenient with the clinic hours of the public health facilities.

After backward elimination (Fig 1), factors associated with the utilization of primary health care services for hypertension were rural residents ((AOR = 2.79, 95% CI = 1.68, 4.67) compared with urban residents, known hypertension (AOR = 4.36, 95% CI = 2.39, 8.23) compared with unknown hypertension, good perception on control and complications of hypertension (AOR = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.14, 0.62) compared with poor perception, necessary perceived cost of travel (AOR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.35, 0.92) compared with those who perceived cost of travel as not necessary and having awareness of available services (AOR = 4.11, 95% CI = 2.55, 6.71) in comparing with those who were not aware of the services.

Fig 1. Factors associated with the utilization of PHC services by multiple logistic regression (final model).

Fig 1

Pvalue—*** <0.001, ** <0.01, * <0.05.

Discussion

This study mainly focused on 40 years and above population with hypertension to explore the factors affecting utilization of primary health care services for hypertension among the targeted population.

Prevalence of hypertension

The overall prevalence of hypertension (38.6%) was higher than the country’s prevalence rates of 30.1% and 26.4% reported by 2009 and 2014 Nationwide STEPs surveys, respectively [23,24]. However, the age composition differences attributed to the relatively higher prevalence of the current study. The participants in the current study were aged ≥40 years while those of 2009 survey ranged 15–64 years, and of 2014 survey ranged 26–64 years. Moreover, the current study prevalence was not similar to the age-standardized prevalence rate of Myanmar (38% among 30–79 years) [1].

Prevalence comparison was made with other countries from South-East Asia Region (SEAR) with similar socio-economic backgrounds after age-standardization. The prevalence of hypertension in this study was higher than that of those studies done in Cambodia [25] and Bangladesh [26]; similar to Nepal [27] and Malaysia [28]; but lower than Vietnam [29], Indonesia [30] and Sri Lanka [31]. However, the overall prevalence might be underestimated because only one-thirds of the screening participants were male population and proportion of behavioral risk factors for NCDs–alcohol and tobacco (both smoke and smokeless)–were higher in male population of Myanmar [24]. Low participation of male in this study–which can also be seen in other community-based, cross-sectional studies [30,32]–reflected health seeking behaviours of male population. They were more likely to be occupied with busy schedules of work during day time and unmotivated to seek health care while they were not having any symptoms. Thus, NCDs care for economically active population at primary health care level should be prioritized to strengthen early detection and timely treatment.

After doing the age-specific analysis of the prevalence increased with age as the age itself was a strong risk factors for hypertension. Higher prevalence among older age group was consistent with the previous nationwide STEPs surveys [23,24].

Like other studies [26,33], urban had higher hypertension prevalence. It was concomitant with the findings detected in previous STEPs survey; greater proportion of metabolic risk factors–obesity, diabetes, hypertriglyceridemia and hypercholesterolemia–were found among urban residents in comparing with rural residents [34].

Utilization of PHC services

A cross-sectional study was conducted among 386 hypertensive participants. Half of the participants (51.8%) utilized PHC services for hypertension offered by public PHC facilities. This utilization rate was somewhat higher than a study from Ghana (41.0%) [35]; but lower than that from China (88.4%) [11]. This increase in China was the benefits from the popularized China rural basic medical insurance system [36]. Thailand has also increased utilization of PHC services after implementing UCS (Universal health care coverage scheme) [37]. So, Myanmar needs to consider the proven interventions to increase the utilization of PHC services for hypertension in the future.

Other than that, there may be several reasons for low utilization of PHC services for hypertension, but possible reasons in this context were health seeking at higher level quality of care [11,38], shortage of human resources [13], and intermittent supply of essential medicine and equipment [13,39], which distract the goals of providing screening, diagnosis and treatment services for hypertension at the primary care level. Thus, the country also needs to increase its investment on public PHC system for essential health care infrastructure to optimize patient outcomes.

Factors associated with the utilization of PHC services

As shown in Fig 1, main factors influencing the utilization of PHC services for hypertension were place of residence, known status of hypertension, perception on hypertension, perceived travel cost and awareness of hypertension services available at PHC facilities.

Urban residents were less likely to utilize the PHC services, which agreed with a China study [40]. There may be several reasons for lower utilization among urban residents. First, urban population have more access to health care services, since various levels of health care facilities were concentrated in urban areas [41]. Second, mandatory health insurance system, and tiered diagnosis and treatment system have not yet been well-established in Myanmar [9]. Third, urban residents choose health facilities based on their conveniences; which have geographical accessibility, affordability and sensitivity to their needs that meet to their satisfaction [42]. For rural, because of limited number of private facilities and less access to higher level health care facilities in comparing with urban areas, rural residents mainly rely on public PHC facilities.

For participants with unknown hypertension, a low level of overall education among the study participants may lead to their low level of knowledge, which contributed to lack of awareness about hypertension and low utilization of health services [43].

In case of utilization of PHC services, education also had negative association with the utilization of public health facilities in LMICs [35,40]. Besides, participants with good perception were more likely to be educated [44]. They may prefer higher level health facilities because they perceived them as offering good quality health care [35,36]. On the contrary, participants with poor perception—more likely to be less educated and poor -may enjoy primary health care services provided at public health facilities which required no or less OOP payments [45]. This indicates the urgent need to prioritize for improvement of essential health care infrastructure that ensures quality hypertension care in public primary health care system.

Although travel time to the health facilities did not have significant association with the utilization, participants who perceived cost was needed to commute to health facilities were less likely to utilize those services. This finding concurred with findings from other study [46].

Previous study from Malaysia also reported lack of awareness of health services as barrier in utilizing health care in their settings [46]. If they were aware of services provided at PHC facilities, and benefits of that services, that would impact on the utilization of those health facilities [47]. That can be seen in Bangladesh service delivery model, where community awareness of services led to increased use of primary health care services [48]. However, “no nearby health facility” may still play a main role for utilizing those services even if they were aware of those services.

Reportedly, all hypertensive participants were convenient with opening hours of public health facilities; it contradicts with many other studies [49,50]. Possible reason was that patients can see BHS even in after-hours and weekends when in need; but they may use them for other services like ante-natal care, post-natal care and other common health problems. Further study to explore community health behaviors related to hypertension care, as well as, social factors are needed to conduct.

This community-based study highlighted the need for promoting public knowledge about hypertension; scaling-up dedicated hypertension care along with quality assurance of public health facilities to meet the expected needs of the population; extending service delivery points to improve equitable access and financial protection, especially for urban slum and rural remote area; and awareness raising for available PHC services. Moreover, prioritization of hypertension care among underutilized population—mostly economically active population—was needed to reduce high burden of diseases in the future.

This study also had few limitations. This study was subject to biases related to selection and information retrieval, which may have effects on prevalence estimates and association measures. First, lower participation of male may underestimate the overall prevalences, though the study had good response rate (85%).

Second, this study did not include private primary health care facilities, e.g., GP clinics because this study focused on PEN implemented primary health care settings and this intervention was limited to public health facilities. This may underestimate the utilization rate of PHC services for hypertension. Future studies should compare utilization of public primary and private primary facilities to better understand utilization patterns at the primary healthcare level.

Third, social desirability biases may also be generated because of face-to-face interview, even though all interviewers were well trained. Thus, perceived health status was mostly rated as good while half of them were having at least one comorbidity. Furthermore, perception on health facilities showed no significant relationship with the utilization of PHC services given by those facilities although many studies reported them as reasons for not utilizing health care in their settings [46,50]. Lastly, the findings may not be generalizable to the whole country, but may reflect the challenges of 40 years and above hypertensive population residing in townships with same socio-demographic characteristics in accessing health care.

Conclusions

This study found out high prevalence rate of hypertension and low utilization rate of PHC services for hypertension among 40 years and above population which was not efficient for both patients and the health system. Findings from this study provided context-specific scientific evidences to tackle existing problems of low utilization of the PHC services for hypertension. Undoubtedly, service availability and readiness regarding prevention and control of hypertension services must be adequate beforehand.

Supporting information

S1 File. List of abbreviations.

(DOCX)

pone.0312186.s001.docx (13KB, docx)
S1 Table. Bivariate analysis between independent variables and the utilization of PHC services among the hypertensive study participants (n = 386).

(DOCX)

pone.0312186.s002.docx (34.3KB, docx)
S2 Table. Factors associated with the utilization of PHC services by multiple logistic regression models.

(DOCX)

pone.0312186.s003.docx (18KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank to all study participants, data collectors and University of Public Health, Yangon for giving ethical clearance.

Data Availability

All data are in the manuscript and Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received IR grant from Department of Medical Research, Ministry of Health, Myanmar. However, the funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization. Global report on hypertension: the race against a silent killer. Geneva; 2023. https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240081062.
  • 2.Swe EE, Htet KKK, Thekkur P, Aung LL, Aye LL, Myint T. Increasing trends in admissions due to non-communicable diseases over 2012 to 2017: findings from three large cities in Myanmar. Tropical Medicine and Health. 2020. Apr 24;48(1):24. doi: 10.1186/s41182-020-00209-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ministry of Health and Sports. Myanmar Health Statistics 2020. Naypyitaw; 2020 Oct. https://mohs.gov.mm/Main/content/publication/myanmar-health-statistics-2020.
  • 4.Ministry of Health and Sports. Hospital Statistics Report 2017–2018. Naypyitaw; 2020 Jun. https://mohs.gov.mm/Main/content/publication/hospital-statistics-report-2017-2018-june-2020.
  • 5.Londoño Agudelo E, Battaglioli T, Díaz Piñera A, Rodríguez Salvá A, Smekens T, Achiong Estupiñán F, et al. Effectiveness of a provider and patient-focused intervention to improve hypertension management and control in the primary health care setting in Cuba: a controlled before-after study. BMC Prim Care. 2023. Jan 14;24(1):10. doi: 10.1186/s12875-022-01959-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Narain JP. Integrating Services for Noncommunicable Diseases Prevention and Control: Use of Primary Health Care Approach. Indian J Community Med. 2011. Dec;36(Suppl1): S67–71. doi: 10.4103/0970-0218.94712 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Egan BM, Sutherland SE, Rakotz M, Yang J, Hanlin RB, Davis RA, et al. Improving hypertension control in primary care with the measure accurately, act rapidly, and partner with patients protocol. Hypertension. 2018. Dec;72(6):1320–7. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.118.11558 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Chen Y, Ding H, Yu M, Zhong J, Hu R, Chen X, et al. The effects of primary care chronic-disease management in rural China. National Bureau of Economic Research; 2019. (Working Paper Series).
  • 9.Latt NN, Myat Cho S, Htun NMM, Yu Mon Saw, Myint MNHA, Aoki F, et al. Healthcare in Myanmar. Nagoya J Med Sci. 2016. May;78(2):123–34. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ministry of Health and Sports. Myanmar National Health Account (2016–2018). Naypyitaw; 2020. p. 17–20. https://mohs.gov.mm/page/11970.
  • 11.Liu J, Yin H, Zheng T, Ilia B, Wang X, Chen R, et al. Primary health institutions preference by hypertensive patients: effect of distance, trust and quality of management in the rural Heilongjiang province of China. BMC Health Services Research. 2019. Nov 20;19(1):852. doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4465-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Than Tun Sein Phone Myint, Tin Nilar, Win Htay, San San Aye Than Sein. The Republic of the Union of Myanmar Health System Review. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014. (Health Systems in Transition; vol. 4). https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/208211. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Aye LL, Tripathy JP, Maung Maung T, Oo MM, Nwe ML, Thu HMM, et al. Experiences from the pilot implementation of the Package of Essential Non-communicable Disease Interventions (PEN) in Myanmar, 2017–18: A mixed methods study. PLoS One. 2020. Feb 18;15(2):e0229081. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229081 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.World Health Organization. Package of essential noncommunicable (PEN) disease interventions for primary health care in low-resource settings. 2010. https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789241598996.
  • 15.World Health Organization. Regional Office for South-East Asia. National capacity for prevention and control of NCDs in SEA Region 2019: Country profiles—Myanmar. World Health Organization. Regional Office for South-East Asia.; 2020. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/333801.
  • 16.Ministry of Health and Sports. National Strategic Plan for Prevention and Control of NCDs (2017–2021). Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar: Ministry of Health and Sports, The Republic of the Union of Myanmar; 2017. Avalilable from: https://www.mohs.gov.mm/Main/content/publication/ncd-national-strategic-plan-for-prevention-and-control-of-ncds-2017-2021.
  • 17.Win Moh Moh Thit, Kyaw Myint Myat Thein, Khin Thiri Maung, Jat TR, Ko Ko, Kyawt San Lwin, et al. Integrating NCD services into primary health care through package of essential non-communicable disease interventions in Myanmar. Yangon: Help Age International; 2017 Oct. https://themimu.info/node/114968.
  • 18.Myanmar Information Management Unit. The 2014 Myanmar Population and Housing Census | MIMU. 2014. https://themimu.info/census-data.
  • 19.Flack JM, Adekola B. Blood pressure and the new ACC/AHA hypertension guidelines. Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2020. Apr 1;30(3):160–4. doi: 10.1016/j.tcm.2019.05.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Verdecchia P, Angeli F. The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: The Weapons Are Ready. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2003. Sep 1;56(9):843–7. doi: 10.1016/s0300-8932(03)76970-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Nwe Nwe, Ko Ko Zaw Sein Hlaing. Care-seeking Behavior and Detection of Target Organ Involvement among Hypertensive Patients in Yangon Region (2014–2015). Myanmar Health Sciences Research Journal. 2016;28(3). [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Machaalani M, Seifeddine H, Ali A, Bitar H, Briman O, Chahine MN. Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice Toward Hypertension Among Hypertensive Patients Residing in Lebanon. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2022. Jul 13; 18:541–53. doi: 10.2147/VHRM.S367187 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.World Health Organization. Noncommunicable Disease Risk Factor Survey Myanmar 2009. Geneva; 2011.
  • 24.Ministry of Health. Report on National Survey of Diabetes Mellitus and Risk Factors for Non-Communicable Diseases in Myanmar (2014) [Internet]. Naypyitaw: Ministry of Health, The Republic of the Union of Myanmar and World Health Organization; 2015. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/2014-steps-country-report-myanmar.
  • 25.Chham S, Buffel V, Van Olmen J, Chhim S, Ir P, Wouters E. The cascade of hypertension care in Cambodia: evidence from a cross-sectional population-based survey. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022. Jun 29;22(1):838. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08232-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hasan M, Khan MSA, Sutradhar I, Hossain MM, Hossaine M, Yoshimura Y, et al. Prevalence and associated factors of hypertension in selected urban and rural areas of Dhaka, Bangladesh: findings from SHASTO baseline survey. BMJ Open. 2021. Jan 1;11(1): e038975. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038975 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Huang Y, Guo P, Karmacharya BM, Seeruttun SR, Xu DR, Hao Y. Prevalence of hypertension and prehypertension in Nepal: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Global Health Research and Policy. 2019. Apr 30;4(1):11. doi: 10.1186/s41256-019-0102-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ismail R, Ismail NH, Md Isa Z, Mohd Tamil A, Ja’afar MH, Mat Nasir N, et al. Prevalence and Factors Associated with Prehypertension and Hypertension Among Adults: Baseline Findings of PURE Malaysia Cohort Study. Am J Med Open. 2023. Jun 23; 10:100049. doi: 10.1016/j.ajmo.2023.100049 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hoang N, Tran T, Huỳnh N, Dang T, Nguyen T. Hypertension and its nutritional associated factors in adults in two coastal communes, Nghe An Province, 2020. Tạp chí Dinh dưỡng và Thực phẩm. 2022. Sep 22; 18:34–43. doi: 10.56283/1859-0381/114 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Defianna SR, Santosa A, Probandari A, Dewi FST. Gender Differences in Prevalence and Risk Factors for Hypertension among Adult Populations: A Cross-Sectional Study in Indonesia. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021. Jun;18(12). doi: 10.3390/ijerph18126259 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Rannan-Eliya RP, Wijemunige N, Perera P, Kapuge Y, Gunawardana N, Sigera C, et al. Prevalence and Associations of Hypertension in Sri Lankan Adults: Estimates from the SLHAS 2018–19 Survey Using JNC7 and ACC/AHA 2017 Guidelines. Global Heart. 2022; 17(1). doi: 10.5334/gh.1135 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Mohanty P, Patnaik L, Nayak G, Dutta A. Gender difference in prevalence of hypertension among Indians across various age-groups: a report from multiple nationally representative samples. BMC Public Health. 2022. Aug 10;22(1):1524. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-13949-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Venkatesh U, Grover A, Vignitha B, Ghai G, Malhotra S, Kishore J, et al. Urban–rural disparities in blood pressure and lifestyle risk factors of hypertension among Indian individuals. J Family Med Prim Care. 2022. Sep;11(9):5746–56. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_573_22 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Htet AS, Bjertness MB, Sherpa LY, Kjøllesdal MK, Oo WM, Meyer HE, et al. Urban-rural differences in the prevalence of non-communicable diseases risk factors among 25–74 years old citizens in Yangon Region, Myanmar: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2016. Dec 5;16(1):1225. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3882-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Opare-Addo MNA, Osei FA, Buabeng KO, Marfo AF, Nyanor I, Amuzu EX, et al. Healthcare services utilisation among patients with hypertension and diabetes in rural Ghana. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. 2020. Jul 30;12(1):e1–8. doi: 10.4102/phcfm.v12i1.2114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Li YN, Nong D xiao, Wei B, Feng QM, Luo H ye. The impact of predisposing, enabling, and need factors in utilization of health services among rural residents in Guangxi, China. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016. Dec;16(1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1825-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Mcmanus J. Thailand’s universal coverage scheme: achievements and challenges: an independent assessment of the first 10 years (2001–2010): synthesis report. Nontaburi, Thailand: Health Insurance System Research Office, 2012.; 2012 May. p. 120. https://www.loc.gov/item/2013341727/.
  • 38.Kujawski SA, Leslie HH, Prabhakaran D, Singh K, Kruk ME. Reasons for low utilisation of public facilities among households with hypertension: analysis of a population-based survey in India. BMJ Glob Health. 2018;3(6):e001002. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Aung WH, Kitreerawutiwong N, Keeratisiroj O, Jariya W. Health Service Readiness, Availability, and Utilization of Primary Health Care Facilities for Non-Communicable Diseases in Shan State, Myanmar. Iran J Public Health. 2022. Jun; 51(6):1303–12. doi: 10.18502/ijph.v51i6.9675 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Song H, Feng D, Wang R, Tang S, Ghose B, Li G, et al. Urban-rural disparity in the utilization of national community-based hypertension monitoring service—results from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study, 2015. PeerJ. 2019. Oct 15;7: e7842. doi: 10.7717/peerj.7842 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Moturi AK, Suiyanka L, Mumo E, Snow RW, Okiro EA, Macharia PM. Geographic accessibility to public and private health facilities in Kenya in 2021: An updated geocoded inventory and spatial analysis. Front Public Health. 2022. Nov 3;10. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1002975 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Aung M, Oo W, Lwin K, Maung Maung T. Health services utilization and self-reported acute illnesses among urban families in Thanlyin Township, Yangon Region, Myanmar. International Journal of Health Sciences and Research. 2016. Jan 6;6:36–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Karmakar N, Nag K, Saha I, Parthasarathi R, Patra M, Sinha R. Awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension among adult population in a rural community of Singur block, Hooghly District, West Bengal. J Educ Health Promot. 2018. Oct 29;7:134. doi: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_164_18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Shiraly R, Jeihooni AK, Shirazi RB. Perception of risk of hypertension related complications and adherence to antihypertensive drugs: a primary healthcare based cross-sectional study. BMC Primary Care. 2022;23. doi: 10.1186/s12875-022-01918-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Mannan MA. Access to Public Health Facilities in Bangladesh: A Study on Facility Utilisation and Burden of Treatment. Bangladesh Development Studies. 2013;36(4):25–80. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Ghafari M, Shamsuddin K, Amiri M. Barriers to Utilization of Health Services: Perception of Postsecondary School Malaysian Urban Youth. Int J Prev Med. 2014. Jul;5(7):805–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Kader HAA, Hassan AM, Gaafary MMEG, Kamal AAM. Awareness and Utilization of Health Services Provided to Ain Shams University Students. The Egyptian Journal of Community Medicine. 2016. Jul 1;34(3):17–33. doi: 10.21608/ejcm.2016.853 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Uddin MdE, George J, Jahan S, Shams Z, Haque N, Perry HB. Learnings From a Pilot Study to Strengthen Primary Health Care Services: The Community-Clinic-Centered Health Service Model in Barishal District, Bangladesh. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2021. Mar 15; 9(Suppl 1):S179–89. doi: 10.9745/GHSP-D-20-00466 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Zhang W, Ung COL, Lin G, Liu J, Li W, Hu H, et al. Factors Contributing to Patients’ Preferences for Primary Health Care Institutions in China: A Qualitative Study. Front Public Health. 2020. Aug 18;8:414. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00414 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Alqossayir FM, Alkhowailed MS, Alammar AY, Alsaeed AA, Alamri YY, Rasheed Z. Factors associated with patients bypassing primary healthcare centres in Qassim Region, KSA. J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2021. Aug 21;16(6):900–5. doi: 10.1016/j.jtumed.2021.07.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Kyaw Lwin Show

30 Jul 2024

PONE-D-24-18219Prevalence of hypertension and factors associated with the utilization of primary health care services for hypertension among hypertensive population aged 40 years and above in Pyin Oo Lwin Township, MyanmarPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Soe,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 13 2024 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,

Kyaw Lwin Show, MPH, PhD

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. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:  

"The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article."

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now 

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Congratulations to the authors for their hard work. Please find my suggestions for improvement below.

- The introduction needs to be restructured and improved. Furthermore, connections between paragraphs are not smooth. Information regarding the important role of primary care services in controlling hypertension is missing.

- You mentioned 1001 participants, but from how many households? Was there any household replacement?

- Can you differentiate whether the utilization is at facilities or through outreach according to the data? This information is important for public health interventions. For e.g. many of the participants utilized through outreach, then outreach interventions should be scaled up.

- Did you cover general practitioners (GPs)? Since GPs are important primary care providers in the community, if not, please consider changing the focus to 'utilization of public primary care services' and acknowledge the limitation of not covering GPs.

- Please response to reviewers’ comments

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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: 1. The abstract's methods section briefly describes the study design but lacks important details like how participants were selected and the response rate.

2. The rationale for determining the sample size is well-explained, considering factors like confidence interval and margin of error. However, there's a discrepancy between the reported prevalence rates (88% vs. 28.9% from national estimates). To ensure accuracy, it's important to clarify how these differences were accounted for in the sample size calculation.

3. The sampling procedure should address any potential biases introduced during participant selection.

4. The definition of primary health care service utilization for hypertension is clearly defined, covering different types of health facilities and services. To strengthen this section, it would be beneficial to provide more details or validation methods on how utilization was measured in the health system

5. It would be helpful to briefly mention any steps taken to protect participant confidentiality and ensure data security during and after data collection.

6. It would be good to clarify whether the study used age-standardization when comparing hypertension prevalence rates with other studies.

7. It would be better to expand on how these findings could inform the improvements of broader health policy and primary healthcare system in Myanmar.

8. Comparing findings with studies from other countries adds depth to the discussion. However, it's important to clearly explain how these comparisons were made, considering differences in healthcare systems and socio-economic factors.

Reviewer #2: Thank you very much for your effort in adding new information and evidence to the field of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), especially in resource-limited developing countries like Myanmar.

In the attachment document, I have included suggestions for revision in relevant areas.

In Financial Disclosure, it is mentioned that “The author(s) received no specific funding for this work”. However, the authors acknowledged the IR grant committee of Department of Medical Research, Ministry of Health. Could you please clarify whether this study was funded by the grant from IR grant committee of Department of Medical Research, Ministry of Health? If not, could you explain how the expenses for this study were covered.

I would like to suggest a through proofread. Some sentences are lengthy and could be rephrased for better clarity and readability.

The abstract should serve as a standalone summary, including all essential details for comprehension without referring to the full manuscript. In this abstract, methods need to be elaborated further, and results and conclusion should be aligned.

Line 29: Please specify the year in which stroke was the first leading cause of death in Myanmar

Line 42: Please correct the grammar for “PHC-oriented research were needed”

In Introduction section, it would be better to explain the reasons for choosing Pyin Oo Lwin Township and the population aged 40 years and above. Additionally, please clarify whether PHC services users need to pay for consultation fees or medicine.

Line 51-59: it is better to provide descriptions of other PHC services providers in study site such as GP clinics, or outpatient departments which are not under the township public health department and should explain the reasons why these are not included as PHC services providers in this study.

Line 71-79: It would be helpful to provide description of the location of the 7 villages and 3 wards.

Line 98: “Data was collected” should be “Data were collected”

Line 104: “two-parts” should be “two parts”

Line 161: Please clarify “not aware of their statuses”. I assume “not aware of their hypertension”.

Line 168: “Table (1) showed” should be “Table (1) shows”

Line 173: Could you please clarify the rationale for using 150,000 MMK as the cutoff point?

Line 181: “Shown in figure (2)” should be “As shown in figure (2)”.

Line 185-186: Please clarify high perception and low perception.

In Results section, it would be better to include relevant findings from bivariate analysis. Additionally, important negative findings-factors not associated with utilization of PHC services-should also be described and discussed in the main manuscript.

Line 195: “Age composition” should be “The age composition”

Line 199: “30-79Years” should be “30-79 years”

Line 207: Can you please spell out “SEAR”

Line 220: Please spell out LHV

Line 226: I would like to suggest using “However” instead of “But” at the beginning of the sentence.

Line 248-249: Could you please elaborate more on “Consequently, urban residents choose health facilities based on their conveniences.”

Line 270: I would like to suggest “economic inaccessibility” instead of “economic accessibility”

In Discussion section: It would be better to explore the possible reasons behind the fact that over two third of the participants were female, as well as operation hours of the PHC service centers. Discussing the implication of these findings and comparisons with other studies could be beneficial. For instance, consider addressing how these differences or similarities affect our understanding of hypertension prevalence, management and PHC utilization in your study population. Furthermore, discussing potential strategies, policy recommendation, and areas for further research to improve the situation would be valuable.

Line 296-298: Could you please provide more details on how the findings from this study support the idea that quality assurance of PHC services improves the utilization of these services for hypertension.

Reviewer #3: Congratulations for your efforts on this study with large sample size and strong methodology. Findings provide invaluable data for program implementation of PHC services. For more clarification on some points, the following comments are provided.

1.The affiliation of the corresponding author should be consistent. Is it Nay Pyi Taw or Pyin Oo Lwin?

2.In Figure (2), “twds” in the third predictor variable should be written in full words.

3.Abbreviation is needed for LHV in line 220.

4.It will be better if you can add the references for "the second reason for lower utilization in urban". For lines 245 and 246.

5.Please provide clarification on whether OOP is needed for both private and public facilities in Myanmar. Because the author’s discussion means to compare two facilities with the same purchasing mechanism for patients' health care. Do patients have to use OOP for all services from public health facilities? Line 249 “When spending OOP payments, people would choose private over public health 250 facilities”

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer comments.docx

pone.0312186.s004.docx (16.1KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2024 Oct 16;19(10):e0312186. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312186.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


19 Sep 2024

Editor Comments:

We thank the editor for the useful and relevant comments and we respond as below: -

- The introduction needs to be restructured and improved. Furthermore, connections between paragraphs are not smooth. Information regarding the important role of primary care services in controlling hypertension is missing.

Yes, we have restructured the introduction to be smooth as you suggested. So, we have decluttered some sentences and added more information to be complete and concise. We have expressed the role of primary health care (PHC) in controlling hypertension and included sentences about feasibility and effectiveness of hypertension care in PHC, with the added reference.

- You mentioned 1001 participants, but from how many households? Was there any household replacement?

Yes, we made household replacement. Total 54 households got replaced for vacant households. We have added the process in methodology session of the manuscript. Of all total households, we got response from 1183 participants of 810 households. Our non-response rate was calculated based on number of participants. So, response rate was 85% (1001 out of 1183). It has been mentioned in revised manuscript.

- Can you differentiate whether the utilization is at facilities or through outreach according to the data? This information is important for public health interventions. For e.g. many of the participants utilized through outreach, then outreach interventions should be scaled up.

Unfortunately, no. The information where participants utilized the primary health services for hypertension could not be reported separately.

But, according to findings, increased perceived travel cost to the nearest public health facilities decreased the utilization of PHC services provided by those facilities. Bivariate analysis also indicated that presence of public health facilities in their wards or villages increased the utilization of PHC services for hypertension.

We have made conclusion from those two points that patients utilized PHC services if the PHC facilities were closer to their home or did not cost them to go the facilities whether it was mobile clinics or through outreach.

- Did you cover general practitioners (GPs)? Since GPs are important primary care providers in the community, if not, please consider changing the focus to 'utilization of public primary care services' and acknowledge the limitation of not covering GPs.

No, this study did not cover private PHC facilities including GPs. So, we have discussed it in revision with the added reference.

Reviewer #1:

We thank the reviewer for giving comments and pointing out some points which need clarification. We respond as below: -

1. The abstract's methods section briefly describes the study design but lacks important details like how participants were selected and the response rate.

We have revised the methodology section of the abstract with brief description of sampling method, response rate and the classification of blood pressure for hypertension.

2. The rationale for determining the sample size is well-explained, considering factors like confidence interval and margin of error. However, there's a discrepancy between the reported prevalence rates (88% vs. 28.9% from national estimates). To ensure accuracy, it's important to clarify how these differences were accounted for in the sample size calculation.

We have made those two prevalence rates clear in revision that the prevalence of hypertension among population was 28.9% and the prevalence of hypertensive individuals who utilized primary health care facilities was 88%.

3. The sampling procedure should address any potential biases introduced during participant selection.

We have discussed potential biases in the revised manuscript.

4. The definition of primary health care service utilization for hypertension is clearly defined, covering different types of health facilities and services. To strengthen this section, it would be beneficial to provide more details or validation methods on how utilization was measured in the health system.

We have mentioned details about validation methods for outcome measures as you suggested.

5. It would be helpful to briefly mention any steps taken to protect participant confidentiality and ensure data security during and after data collection.

We have added information about what we did for maintaining participant confidentiality in methodology section.

6. It would be good to clarify whether the study used age-standardization when comparing hypertension prevalence rates with other studies.

We have compared this study prevalence with other studies prevalence rates after age-standardization. We have put this information in the revised manuscript.

7. It would be better to expand on how these findings could inform the improvements of broader health policy and primary healthcare system in Myanmar.

We have discussed some policy implications that would assist in strengthening of primary health system in discussion section.

8. Comparing findings with studies from other countries adds depth to the discussion. However, it's important to clearly explain how these comparisons were made, considering differences in healthcare systems and socio-economic factors.

In the revised manuscript, we have made prevalence comparison with other Low-and-Middle income countries from South-East Asia with similar socioeconomic backgrounds. So, we have removed some prevalence rates of the countries which was mentioned in the previous manuscript, because of different socio-economic and geographical backgrounds (China, India and Nigeria) in making comparison.

Reviewer #2:

We thank you the reviewer for insightful comments. We responded as below: -

In Financial Disclosure, it is mentioned that “The author(s) received no specific funding for this work”. However, the authors acknowledged the IR grant committee of Department of Medical Research, Ministry of Health. Could you please clarify whether this study was funded by the grant from IR grant committee of Department of Medical Research, Ministry of Health? If not, could you explain how the expenses for this study were covered.

We have got the IR grant from IR grant committee of Department of Medical Research, Ministry of Health. It covered for the expenses of data collection, but did not cover for the work of publication.

I would like to suggest a through proofread. Some sentences are lengthy and could be rephrased for better clarity and readability.

Yes. We have modified some lengthy sentences into readable ones in the revised manuscript.

The abstract should serve as a standalone summary, including all essential details for comprehension without referring to the full manuscript. In this abstract, methods need to be elaborated further, and results and conclusion should be aligned.

We have made sure this revised abstract is concise, complete and comprehending. We also have revised the methodology section to be complete, and results and conclusion sections to be aligned.

We also have comments from another reviewer for the point of results not being aligned with conclusion.

We have modified it and discussed it in discussion section of the revised manuscript.

Line 29: Please specify the year in which stroke was the first leading cause of death in Myanmar

It was the result of Verbal autopsy survey 2014-2016.

In Introduction section, it would be better to explain the reasons for choosing Pyin Oo Lwin Township and the population aged 40 years and above. Additionally, please clarify whether PHC services users need to pay for consultation fees or medicine.

According to PEN guidelines, 40 years and above is the target age group and it is considered as risk in calculating cardiovascular risk scores.

After PEN projects had piloted two townships of Yangon in 2012, PEN was expanded in 20 townships of 5 States and Regions in 2017. Pyin Oo Lwin was included in not only the extended townships, but also, piloted townships for Mandalay Region.

In Myanmar Health Statistics 2019, it mentioned Mandalay was one of the Regions with higher prevalences of hypertension. Besides, whether hypertension services (including screening and treatment) provided at public health facilities of Pyin Oo Lwin Township were underutilized or not, was uncertain. This may be due to increased screening activities of the Region.

However, number of people who utilize the services was much lower than that of 40 years and above township population according to Pyin Oo Lwin Township Public Health Department. That’s why we chose the study population was 40 years and above population of Pyin Oo Lwin Township.

Besides, PHC services provided at public health facilities do not need to pay for consultation fees and essential medicine if they are not stock-out. However, whenever there is shortage of medicines supply in health facilities, patients have to purchase medicines and medical supplies at retail pharmacies. costs patients with out-of-pocket expenditures.

Line 51-59: it is better to provide descriptions of other PHC services providers in study site such as GP clinics, or outpatient departments which are not under the township public health department and should explain the reasons why these are not included as PHC services providers in this study.

This study did not cover private PHC facilities including GPs. So, we have discussed it in both methodology and discussion sections of the revised manuscript.

Line 71-79: It would be helpful to provide description of the location of the 7 villages and 3 wards.

We have added some information regarding the description of location of the study site in methodology section.

Line 42: Please correct the grammar for “PHC-oriented research were needed”

Line 98: “Data was collected” should be “Data were collected”

Line 104: “two-parts” should be “two parts”

Line 161: Please clarify “not aware of their statuses”. I assume “not aware of their hypertension”.

Line 168: “Table (1) showed” should be “Table (1) shows”

Line 181: “Shown in figure (2)” should be “As shown in figure (2)”.

Line 195: “Age composition” should be “The age composition” checked

Line 199: “30-79Years” should be “30-79 years” checked

Line 270: I would like to suggest “economic inaccessibility” instead of “economic accessibility” checked

Those mistakes have been corrected.

Line 173: Could you please clarify the rationale for using 150,000 MMK as the cutoff point?

Until October 2023, Daily wages of a person was 4800 MMK. At least for single income households, they should be earned 150,000 MMK per month. It was similar to the income levels of Household Amenities in Myanmar (2014 - 2019), nearly over one third of households lived with annual income of 1.8 million MMK which was 150,000 MMK.

Line 185-186: Please clarify high perception and low perception.

For better clarification, we have changed the terms “high” and “low” into “good” and “poor” perception.

In this study, perception on hypertension is meant for a person’s own view or interpretation of control of hypertension. Perception on health facilities is meant for a person’s own view or interpretation that he or she has about public PHC facilities; how they stand in the community. Both perceptions are classified as poor (<50% scores), average (50-75% scores) and good (>75% scores).

In Results section, it would be better to include relevant findings from bivariate analysis. Additionally, important negative findings-factors not associated with utilization of PHC services-should also be described and discussed in the main manuscript.

We have discussed associations of outcome measures with some relevant findings in descriptive and bivariate analyses though they are not significant predictors in multivariate analysis.

Line 207: Can you please spell out “SEAR”

SEAR stands for South-East Asia Region. We have described it in abbreviations. We have also clarified it in the main manuscript.

Line 220: Please spell out LHV

LHV stands for Lady Health Visitor. It has also been described in abbreviations. We have also clarified it in the main manuscript.

Line 226: I would like to suggest using “However” instead of “But” at the beginning of the sentence.

We have modified it according to your suggestion.

Line 248-249: Could you please elaborate more on “Consequently, urban residents choose health facilities based on their conveniences.”

We have modified that sentence in the revised manuscript.

Secondary and tertiary public hospitals are mainly located in urban. Private health facilities (Private hospitals, Specialist clinics and GP clinics) are more condensed in urban. At the same time, urban had lower number of public primary health facilities than rural. Public hospitals are crowded and ambulatory OPD are not convenient with their working time. In addition, Myanmar has not established the mandatory tiered referral system.

At that time, urban residents choose health facilities based on their conveniences; which have geographical accessibility, affordability, sensitivity to their needs that meet to their satisfaction.

In Discussion section: It would be better to explore the possible reasons behind the fact that over two third of the participants were female, as well as operation hours of the PHC service centers. Discussing the implication of these findings and comparisons with other studies could be beneficial. For instance, consider addressing how these differences or similarities affect our understanding of hypertension prevalence, management and PHC utilization in your study population. Furthermore, discussing potential strategies, policy recommendation, and areas for further research to improve the situation would be valuable.

We have ensured that, as a community-based cross-sectional study conducting in day time, male population are less likely to stay at home and participate in the study, unless we made the selection bias controlled; it was a limitation of the study. We mentioned other coinciding studies with references in the discussion section.

We thought the overall prevalence may have biased in any directions but, in Myanmar, male have higher behavioral risk factors than female. So, we inferred that low participation of male population may bring about underestimation of the overall prevalence.

We have recommended to prioritize NCDs care for economically active population at primary health care level for early detection and timely treatment.

Line 296-298: Could you please provide more details on how the findings from this study support the idea that quality assurance of PHC services improves the utilization of these services for hypertension.

Thank you for pointing that out. We have this comment from another reviewer as well.

Our study assessed the utilization of PHC services for hypertension. We found the utilization rate was low and we have discussed the possible reasons for low utilization and included about health seeking at higher quality of care and discussed it with references.

Moreover, we have also found that participants with good perception on hypertension and higher education were less likely to utilize the public health facilities.

Kujawski et al. explored reasons for low utilization of public health facilities. In that study, households with hypertension tended to utilize private healthcare at facilities staffed with qualified providers.

That study also found that choosing private over public primary facilities was mainly because of technical quality reasons (poor quality of care, doctor not available, drugs not available, health personnel often absent, no adequate infrastructure).

Opare-Addo et al. also found that public hospitals were preferred choices of health facilities because of their perception about offering good quality of care in higher level health facilities. That study also found that negative association of education with utilization of public health centers which agrees with our study findings.

After considering all the points, we have inferred that quality assurance of public PHC facilities; by continuous monitoring, assessment and improvement of essential health care infrastructure; improves the utilization of these services for hypertension

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0312186.s005.docx (39.7KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Kyaw Lwin Show

2 Oct 2024

Prevalence of hypertension and factors associated with the utilization of primary health care services for hypertension among hypertensive population aged 40 years and above in Pyin Oo Lwin Township, Myanmar

PONE-D-24-18219R1

Dear Dr. Soe,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Kyaw Lwin Show, MPH, PhD

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 #1: All comments have been addressed

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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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 #1: Yes

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 #1: Yes

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 #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Thank you for revising the manuscript and addressing most of the comments and recommendations provided in the first review.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript follows the guidelines and authors response thoroughly to the reviewers' comments and questions. Hope to be published soon.

**********

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 #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: MAY SOE AUNG, PhD (Public Health), MPH, MBBS, DipMedEd, Associate Professor, University of Medicine (1), Yangon, Myanmar

**********

Acceptance letter

Kyaw Lwin Show

7 Oct 2024

PONE-D-24-18219R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Soe,

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

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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. Kyaw Lwin Show

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 File. List of abbreviations.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0312186.s001.docx (13KB, docx)
    S1 Table. Bivariate analysis between independent variables and the utilization of PHC services among the hypertensive study participants (n = 386).

    (DOCX)

    pone.0312186.s002.docx (34.3KB, docx)
    S2 Table. Factors associated with the utilization of PHC services by multiple logistic regression models.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0312186.s003.docx (18KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer comments.docx

    pone.0312186.s004.docx (16.1KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0312186.s005.docx (39.7KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All data are in the manuscript and Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES