Table 4.
Prevalence of hypertension and logistic regression analysis between hypertension and dietary pattern.
| Dietary pattern | Prevalence of Hypertension | P-value | Univariate analysis | P for trend | Model1 | P for trend | Model2 | P for trend | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | ||||||||
| Tsampa-red meat-tuber | |||||||||
| Q1 | 68 | 21.5 | <0.001# | 1 (reference) | <0.001# | 1 (reference) | <0.001# | 1 (reference) | <0.001# |
| Q2 | 80 | 25.4 | 1.24 (0.86–1.80) | 1.25 (0.84–1.87) | 1.27 (0.84–1.90) | ||||
| Q3 | 106 | 33.5 | 1.84 (1.29–2.63) | 1.97 (1.34–2.91) | 1.92 (1.29–2.85) | ||||
| Q4 | 131 | 41.6 | 2.60 (1.83–3.68) | 3.09 (2.10–4.54) | 3.07 (2.07–4.55) | ||||
| Rice-vegetable-fruit | |||||||||
| Q1 | 132 | 41.9 | <0.001# | 1 (reference) | <0.001# | 1 (reference) | <0.001# | 1 (reference) | <0.001# |
| Q2 | 95 | 30.1 | 0.60 (0.43–0.83) | 0.71 (0.49–1.01) | 0.69 (0.48–1.01) | ||||
| Q3 | 87 | 27.5 | 0.53 (0.38–0.74) | 0.58 (0.40–0.83) | 0.57 (0.39–0.84) | ||||
| Q4 | 67 | 21.3 | 0.38 (0.26–0.53) | 0.47 (0.32–0.69) | 0.43 (0.29–0.65) | ||||
| Dairy products | |||||||||
| Q1 | 124 | 39.4 | <0.001# | 1 (reference) | <0.001# | 1 (reference) | 0.003* | 1 (reference) | 0.002* |
| Q2 | 99 | 31.3 | 0.70 (0.51–0.98) | 0.75 (0.52–1.08) | 0.74 (0.51–1.09) | ||||
| Q3 | 82 | 25.9 | 0.54 (0.39–0.76) | 0.62 (0.43–0.91) | 0.58 (0.39–0.86) | ||||
| Q4 | 76 | 24.1 | 0.49 (0.35–0.69) | 0.58 (0.40–0.85) | 0.55 (0.37–0.82) | ||||
Q1: 1st quartile; Q2: 2nd quartile; Q3: 3rd quartile; Q4: 4th quartile; n, number. Model 1: Adjusted for age, gender, living area, education, physical activity, current smoking, and current drinking. Model 2: Adjusted for the factors in Model 1 as well as body mass index, fasting blood glucose, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, triglycerides. A P-value < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant; *P < 0.05; #P < 0.001.