Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Mar 23;21(3):e0345013. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0345013

Prevalence of undiagnosed hypertension and risk assessment using a validated survey in community-based screening in Amman, Jordan

Anas Khaleel 1, Malak Al-Quaiti 1, Sara Istaitiya 1, Abhijit V Kshirsagar 2, Heejung Bang 3,¤a,*
Editor: Nour Amin Elsahoryi4
PMCID: PMC13008244  PMID: 41871149

Abstract

Background and objectives

The rising incidence of hypertension in Jordan has contributed to high rates of associated morbidity/mortality and increased societal costs. Hypertension affects approximately 30% of Jordan’s adult population. This study assessed the prevalence of undiagnosed hypertension through blood pressure measurement and evaluated future hypertension risk using a validated survey in a community setting. The survey instrument incorporates demographic and clinical factors to predict the likelihood of hypertension development within a nine-year timeframe.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional local community screening in Amman, Jordan (Sept 2022-Sept 2023). Trained university pharmacy students had measured blood pressure and distributed a validated 9-risk predictors questionnaire to adults without diagnosed hypertension during a single visit. Participants were categorized using American Heart Association criteria.

Results

Among 932 adult participants of the study, approximately 57% were female, 34% were overweight, 16% were obese, and 5.3% were extremely obese. Risk factors included current smoking (38%), diabetes mellitus comorbidity (8%), family history of hypertension (61%), and insufficient exercise (62%). Systolic readings were classified as elevated (45%), stage 1 (15%), or stage 2 (5.5%). Diastolic readings had stage 1 (42%) or stage 2 (7.6%). Participants with risk scores ≥17 (n = 39) were those who had current hypertension (BP ≥ 140/90 mmHg). Those were classified as high-risk based on established cutoffs.

Conclusion

Our community screening revealed a high prevalence of undiagnosed hypertension (20.6%) and identified a substantial proportion at high risk for future hypertension. The risk assessment tool showed good screening ability to reveal the participants’ hypertension status, supporting its utility for risk stratification in resource-limited settings. Moreover, our validated risk tool effectively classified between those with and without current hypertension and identified individuals needing intensive preventive interventions. This dual approach of BP measurement and risk assessment may guide targeted screening intervals and preventive interventions in Jordan and similar settings.

Introduction

High blood pressure (BP) or hypertension, defined by the World Health Organization as a BP reading ≥140/90 mmHg, is a global health problem. It is a highly prevalent, chronic age-related disorder often contributing to cardiovascular and/or kidney complications [1–5]. The incidence of hypertension in Jordan has increased steadily in recent years–20% in 2012 to 30% by 2020 and expected to rise to 46% in 2030 [6–8].

Undiagnosed hypertension represents a hidden national health burden. Alhawari et al. found that nearly 38% of Jordanians had undiagnosed stage 1 hypertension, and 30% had undiagnosed stage 2 hypertension, according to the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines [9]. There are many risk factors for hypertension beyond well-known factors of age and family history [10]. Being overweight and obese increases the risk of hypertension and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Lack of exercise or physical activity can cause weight gain, increasing hypertension risk [11–14]. Smoking also can cause an immediate increase in BP and is considered a contemporary risk factor for developing hypertension [15–18]. High salt intake from food causes the body to retain fluids, increasing BP and predisposing a person to develop hypertension [19–21]. High levels of stress and stress-related habits can also lead to a temporary increase in BP and may contribute to risk factors causing hypertension [22–25]. Certain chronic diseases or comorbidities, such as diabetes mellitus (DM) and chronic kidney disease (CKD), can also lead to high BP [26,27]. It has been reported that DM was significantly associated with hypertension [8].

Internationally, risk-scoring systems have been developed to identify high-risk individuals via estimating the probability of developing hypertension (or other critical medical conditions). These tools aim to increase patient awareness and health education, which could help reduce the prevalence of hypertension and control comorbidities and incidence/recurrence of CVD [28,29]. In CVD, DM, and CKD, risk assessment tools are widely used, and some have been cross-validated in Western and Eastern populations [30,31]. In contrast, self-assessment of risk in practice is not commonly utilized for hypertension despite availability [32], perhaps because BP can be directly measured. Additionally, the general public is not well aware of the future risk of events associated with hypertension.

Awareness of hypertension varies widely in the Middle East; Oman (24%), Morocco (22%), and Jordan (14% to 82%) and likely depends on the age of participants in different awareness studies [33]. Reports have confirmed that individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to have undiagnosed hypertension [34,35].

Thus, there is a need to screen for hypertension risk in Jordan. Risk assessment instruments can be used to identify at-risk individuals, and to implement preventive strategies, including periodic blood pressure monitoring or altering modifiable risk factors/lifestyles to avoid or delay hypertension onset [32]. Low-cost treatments, counseling, and preventive approaches are available throughout Jordan. Preventive programs showed that post-campaign response can improve lifestyle and dietary habits and awareness among Jordanians [36].

The current study aimed to identify the prevalence of undiagnosed hypertension and assess future hypertension risk using a validated risk-scoring tool in the general public in Amman, Jordan.

Methods

Study design, setting, and participants

Pharmacy students from the University of Petra volunteered to participate as data collectors. They administered questionnaires to family members, friends, and neighbors who met the inclusion criteria (adults without known hypertension). During the same visit, students measured participants’ blood pressure and assisted with questionnaire completion. This convenience sampling approach limits generalizability beyond the study population. The structured questionnaire was used to gather data on sociodemographic, clinical, and behavioral/lifestyle factors. A total of 1000 questionnaires were distributed to University of Petra Pharmacy College students and collected from 07/09/2022 to 07/09/2023. Supporting file 1 contains the study IRB document. Students participated in this study and also distributed questionnaires randomly to their family members and friends/neighbors and were instructed to invite persons without known hypertension (i.e., taking hypertension medication or having been diagnosed by a healthcare provider).

Questionnaires were devised to assess the future risk of developing hypertension via questions included in Kshirsagar et al.’s risk scoring [32] and additional background and potential risk factors. Supporting file 2 contains the original questionnaire.

The survey was translated into Arabic and tested by expert faculty members and students for comprehension and context. Five faculty members read and revised questions and verified their validity and ease of understanding without response bias. Participants (~30 individuals) in a pilot testing also provided feedback regarding the clarity of questions. Written informed consent was provided by all participants who were reminded that participation was entirely voluntary and that they could opt-out at any time and for any reason. No identifying information was collected; all questionnaires were anonymous. This study design was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Petra (decision number: 20220443).

Pharmacy students helped to measure and record resting BP using Omron™ BP measuring electronic machine (Omron Healthcare, Osaka, Japan); model Omron HEM-907XL IntelliSense Professional and to assist participants in completing questionnaires. Students received brief training from two college pharmacy professors on correctly measuring BP and individuals being seated. Moreover, participants were instructed to abstain from smoking and caffeine intake for at least 30 minutes before measuring. BP was measured once; if the reading was elevated (SBP ≥ 120 or DBP ≥ 80 mmHg), a second measurement was taken after 1–2 minutes of rest, and the two readings were averaged. Rarely, three measurements were taken and averaged. This pragmatic approach balanced resource constraints with measurement reliability but introduced potential variability due to non-standardized intervals between readings. Limitations in a community-based study (long-term follow-up) and rational multiple readings are standard for BP diagnosis. Data were entered into Microsoft Excel, cleaned, and analyzed.

This electronic machine model has been validated for clinical use according to international protocols and is recommended by the European Society of Hypertension for office BP measurements.

Standardized multiple readings at fixed intervals (e.g., 3 readings at 1-minute intervals) are ideal for BP diagnosis. Moreover, data collection occurred in a single visit where participants completed the questionnaire with assistance from trained pharmacy students who also measured their BP during the same session.

Risk assessment tool.

The risk assessment tool we utilized was adapted from one originally developed for the US adult population using large prospective cohorts and combined risk factors, which often co-exist and cumulatively affect the risk of hypertension; it provides individual item and total integer scores and can be converted to risk probabilities in a user-friendly format [32]. Our questionnaire included 15 questions, including demographics (six questions) and nine variables/predictors to assess the general public’s risk (or probability) of developing hypertension up to 9 years hence.

Risk factors with corresponding points are provided below:

  1. Age (years): ≤54 y = 0 points; 55–64 y = 2 points; 65–74 y = 3 points; and ≥75 y = 4 points.

  2. Sex (female): yes = 1, no = 0 points.

  3. Smoking status: yes = 1, no = 0 points.

  4. Exercise: yes = 0, no = 1 points.

  5. Family history of hypertension: yes = 1, no = 0 points.

  6. Body mass index: <25 (normal weight)=0; 25–29 (overweight)=1; 30–39 (obese)=2; and ≥40 (extremely obese)=3 points.

  7. Diabetes: yes = 1, no = 0 points.

  8. BP readings:

    • a. Systolic BP (SBP) in mmHg

      • i. SBP <110 = 0; 110–114 = 2; 115–119 = 3; 120–124 = 4; 125–129 = 6; 130–134 = 8; 135–139 = 14; and >140 = 14 points.

    • b. Diastolic BP (DBP) in mmHg, depending on age

      • i. For age <55 y; DBP <70 = 0, 70–79 = 2, ≥80 = 3 points.

      • ii. For age in 55–64 y; DBP 70–79 = −1, ≥80 = −1 points.

      • iii. For age in 65–74 y; DBP 70–79 = −2, ≥80 = −3 points.

      • iv. For age ≥75 y; DBP 70–79 = −1, ≥80 = −2 points.

A total risk score was calculated as the sum of all points, and this value was translated to the risk of hypertension over the next 3, 6, and 9 years using the published risk chart.

Age, level of systolic or diastolic BP, smoking, family history of hypertension, DM, body mass index, sex, and exercise were associated with the development of hypertension [32]. We used the original risk score, without adding other potential risk factors where some are hard to measure in the community settings. A score of ≥17 points was considered a high risk of developing hypertension according to the cutoff value proposed by Kshirsagar et al.’s validated risk assessment tool, developed and applied previously in the US population and currently to the Jordanian population [32]. The minimum obtainable score is 0 points, and the maximum is 30 points.

Statistical analyses.

Statistical analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for Social Science version 25 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). We used descriptive statistics to summarize data: continuous variables were used to summarize age and hypertension risk via mean or median and standard deviation or range, and categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages. Missing data and incomplete questionnaires were excluded from statistical analysis. Risk scores were obtained to stratify individuals for the risk of hypertension incidence.

Results

Characteristics of participants

A total of 932 adults participated in this study. Table 1 presents participant characteristics. Study participant selection and analysis are shown in Fig 1. A total of 1000 questionnaires were distributed, and 932 individuals (~93% response rate) participated and were included in the analyses; 68 were excluded due to incomplete/missing data. Participants ranged from 18–89 years old, with a median age of 40. Among 932 participants, 402 (43%) were male, and 530 (57%) were female. Current smokers were 38%. Consistent with exclusion criteria, no participant was taking BP medication or hypertension-related treatment.

Table 1. Sociodemographic and CLINICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDY PARTICIPANTS (N = 932).

Characteristics n (%)
Age, years median: 40 (range: 18–89)
Sex
 Male 402 (43.1%)
 Female 530 (56.9%)
Education level
 Less than High school 216 (23.2%)
 High school diploma 84 (9.0%)
 Bachelor 551 (59.1%)
 Master’s degree 49 (5.3%)
 Doctorate 32 (3.4%)
Medical degree or major*
 Yes 186 (20.0%)
 No 746 (80.0%)
Medical insurance
 Yes 490 (52.6%)
 No 442 (47.4%)
Marital/living status
 Married 519 (55.7%)
 Single 360 (38.6%)
 Divorced/widow 53 (5.7%)
Monthly Salary Jordanian Dinar (JD), 1 JD = 0.71 USD (2023 rate)
 Less than 250 JDs 50 (5.4%)
 251–500 JDs 90 (9.7%)
 501–750 JDs 64 (6.9%)
 751–1000 JDs 49 (5.3%)
 More than 1000 JDs 82 (8.8%)
 Refused to answer 597 (64.1%)
Body Mass Index (kg/m2)
 Underweight 19 (2.0%)
 Normal 397 (42.6%)
 Overweight 317 (34.0%)
 Obese 150 (16.1%)
 Extremely obese 49 (5.3%)
High salt intake > 5 g per day (about 3/4 of a teaspoon)
 Yes 536 (57.5%)
 No 396 (42.5%)
Smoking status
 Current smoker 353 (37.9%)
 Former smoker 26 (2.8%)
 Never 553 (59.3%)
Diabetes mellitus
 Yes 74 (7.9%)
 No 858 (92.1%)
Family history of hypertension**
 Yes 564 (60.5%)
 No 368 (39.5%)
Exercise status***
 Yes 352 (37.8%)
 No 580 (62.2%)

*Medical major: MD/nurse/pharmacy, etc.

**Family history of hypertension: reporting one or two parents who have been diagnosed with hypertension.

***30–60 minutes of physical activity at least three days per week (approximately 140 minutes of moderate exercise, according to the American College of Cardiology).

Fig 1. The chart outlines the selection process for participants, starting with the initial distribution of questionnaires through the final analysis phase.

Fig 1

One thousand questionnaires were sent to adults who had never been diagnosed with hypertension. A total of 932 subjects were included in the final analysis.

Among the 932 participants without diagnosed hypertension, SBP readings showed that 34% were normal, 45% were elevated, 15% were stage 1, and 5.5% were stage 2; for DBP, 50% were normal or elevated, 42% were stage 1, and 7.6% were stage 2, according to the AHA guidelines (Table 2). Prehypertension (elevated BP) per AHA refers to BP higher than usual; readings can range from 120 to 129 for SBP with normal DBP [37]. As such, some participants newly learned about their hypertension status as a result of this risk assessment survey.

Table 2. Blood pressure measurements and distribution (N = 932).

Systolic Blood Pressure (in mmHg)
 • Normal <120 314 (33.7%)
 • Elevated 120–129 423 (45.4%)
 • Stage 1 130–139 141 (15.1%)
 • Stage 2 ≥ 140
 • Hypertensive crisis >180
51 (5.5%)
3 (0.3%)
Diastolic Blood Pressure (in mmHg)
 • Normal & Elevated <80 470 (50.4%)
 • Stage 1 80–89 391 (42.0%)
 • Stage 2 ≥ 90 71 (7.6%)
 • Hypertensive crisis >120 0 (0%)

Per the American Heart Association, systolic blood pressure (SBP) less than 120, and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) less than 80 is considered normal. Elevated BP is SBP between 120 and 129, even with normal DBP. High BP (hypertension) is classified by stage: Stage 1: SBP is 130–139 or DBP 80–89, and Stage 2: SBP is 140 or higher, or DBP is 90 or above. In clinical practice, clinicians usually use combined readings (when assessing patients’ BP) and categorize patients based on the higher reading level, either SBP or DBP. Multiple measurements in different days (occasions) are required to confirm the clinical diagnosis.

Risk scores that predict hypertension at 3, 6, and 9 years.

Total scores were calculated as the sum of points obtained from the risk assessment questionnaires. These scores were used to estimate the risk probability for the next 3, 6, and 9 years, following risk tabulation published by Kshirsagar et al. [32]. As detailed in S1 Table. Fig 2 summarize risk scores and future risk of developing hypertension. Participants who scored 11 points have a 9-year risk of >50%, and participants who scored 15 points have a 6-year risk of >50%. Additionally, participants who scored 22 points have three 3-year risk >50%. With the cutoff point of 17 suggested from the original model/study for the US population, the 6-year risk is almost 50%, and the 9-year risk is 75%.

Fig 2. Total scores and risk estimates of the 932 participants.

Fig 2

Orange bars represent the frequency (number of participants in the risk category). Blue bars represent the total risk points scored. The grey line represents the risk percentage among participants.

We found that 51 participants (5.5%) were classified as stage 2 hypertension according to the AHA criteria, 141 participants (15.1%) were classified as stage 1 hypertension, 423 participants (45.4%) had elevated BP, and 314 participants (33.7%) had normal BP based on both readings SBP and DBP (SBP < 120 mmHg and DBP < 80 mmHg). When we analyzed the DBP readings separately, we observed that 71 participants (7.6%) had stage 2 hypertension, 391 participants (42.0%) had stage 1 hypertension, and 470 participants (50.4%) had normal readings. Taking SBP and DBP together, we found that three out of 932 participants constitute 0.3% recognized to have a hypertensive crisis (all 3 had SBP > 180 mmHg and 0 had DBP > 120 mmHg); those participants were told that their reading was very high so they should seek medical attention as soon as possible. Also, 423 individuals (45.4%) with elevated BP based on SBP (in 120–129 mmHg) were identified in the current study.

Additionally, among the 39 participants with risk scores ≥17, the following characteristics were observed:

  • Mean age: 58 years (SD ± 9)

  • Female: 38%

  • Current smokers: 29%

  • Family history of hypertension: 72%

  • BMI ≥ 30: 54%

  • DM: 31%

  • No regular exercise: 67%

This approach could optimize resource allocation in resource-limited settings while ensuring timely detection of hypertension among those at highest risk.

To examine the relationship between high-risk scores and current hypertension status, we conducted a 2x2 contingency table analysis.

Among participants with risk scores ≥17 (n = 39), those who had current hypertension (BP ≥ 140/90 mmHg) and/or the high-risk and lower-risk participants are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Contingency table for high risk score >17 points.
Hypertension Present (BP ≥ 140/90) Hypertension Absent (BP < 140/90) Total
High Risk (>17) 23 16 39
Low/Mod Risk (≤17) 31 862 893
Total 54 878 932

OR: 19.3 (95% CI: 9.2–40.4, p < 0.001), Sensitivity: 62.8%, Specificity: 96.2%, PPV: 64.8%, NPV: 95.8%.

The risk score demonstrated screening utility for identifying current hypertension, with an odds ratio (OR) of 19.3 (95% CI: 9.2–40.4; p < 0.001), sensitivity of 62.8%, and specificity of 96.2%. These results enhance the tool’s utility for risk stratification rather than definitive diagnosis.

Discussion

In this community-based study for hypertension screening and risk assessment, we employed a risk-scoring tool for a convenience sample of 932 Jordanian adults. We utilized a risk assessment tool adapted from a validated instrument to predict the likelihood of hypertension development within a nine-year period. This tool incorporates a comprehensive set of risk factors, including demographics and lifestyle variables.

We found that nearly 70% of our study participants (a cumulative proportion on elevated, stage 1 and stage 2 readings on SBP is 45.4 + 15.1 + 5.5%, respectively; plus, 5% separately high DBP reading) could have met the condition of prehypertension or hypertension, according to the AHA BP reading criteria [37,38]. According to Khader et al., the prevalence of hypertension in the general Jordanian population is estimated as one in every three adults; specifically, 29% of adult females and 34% of adult males were officially diagnosed and taking antihypertensive medications [8]. Nevertheless, this is similar to the prevalence of hypertension in the wider Arab region, reported 29% [8], comparable to the US prevalence of 32%, but lower than the rate in European countries, which is 39% (not adjusting calendar years) [39].

The detection of new cases (some urgent) in this study demonstrates the importance of hypertension screening to increase awareness and detection of hypertension and associated risk factors, and to play a critical role in communication and shared decision-making between clinicians and patients. The high rates of modifiable risk factors, namely physical inactivity (62%), smoking (38%), and obesity (21%), show that there are high opportunities for targeted interventions. The existing tobacco control programs in Jordan will be of special benefit to this group. Notably, 16/39 (41%) high-risk scorers did not have current diagnosed hypertension, representing a significant prevention opportunity. These individuals require intensive lifestyle counseling and frequent BP monitoring.

Our study also demonstrates a potential role for community pharmacies, pharmacy interns and students to help identify/screen for undiagnosed hypertension and assess/teach future risk. Community pharmacies−together with pharmacists or pharmacy assistants−can serve as affordable, friendly and accessible locations, especially for low socioeconomic, low health literacy and busy citizens of Jordan. Simple pencil and paper risk assessment tools and BP machines may be easily and inexpensively installed in waiting rooms in clinic and community health center as well as at pharmacies and health fairs/events.

Our report showed that ~45% (423/932) of participants likely have prehypertension based on SBP readings. Those individuals were to be referred to primary care or special clinics for accurate diagnosis or for follow-up and monitoring of BP at home and with clinician (and related comorbidities) to prevent developing chronic hypertension or for general health management according to current medical guidelines [40]. Prehypertension is a significant public health concern in Jordan, with a considerable portion of the population falling within this category. Many individuals with prehypertension may be unaware of their condition, leading to delayed diagnosis and intervention. Prehypertension is treated with lifestyle changes, and sometimes medication or nonpharmacologic therapy according to AHA/ACC.

Preventive strategies may be inferred from the scoring system to help patients recognize hypertension−possibly with a healthcare worker’s help−and associated risk factors. A previous report showed that females and higher education levels were positively associated with diets specific to lowering or controlling BP [41]. Another study highlighted the importance of patient self-motivation in managing hypertension. The authors suggest that clinicians and other healthcare providers should recognize that patients may respond differently regarding treatment compliance [42]. Personalized plans to prevent or treat hypertension and related chronic diseases such as DM and CKD jointly can involve a long-term commitment both from patients/family as well as clinicians to lifestyle modification and pharmacologic therapy. One group that likely needs personalized plans with frequent blood pressure monitoring are those that score ≥ 17, at least every 3 months to determine if therapy is needed. The good news is that many medications are available, safe, and widely accessible at low cost in Jordan. Based on our findings, we propose a risk-stratified screening approach: High risk (score ≥17), moderate risk (score 11–16), and finally low risk (score <11).

The prevalence of hypertension in Arab countries is approximately 30% [7,39]. Health education, therapeutic lifestyle and environment changes, counseling, and behavior modifications can improve the awareness of cardiac-related conditions (and important roles of BP), attitudes, and responsibility for daily health management at home, nutritional practices, and interpersonal relationships [36]. Various strategies to decrease CVD, DM, and hypertension risk have been published [43,44]. including prevention and treatment of obesity, physical activity (such as aerobic exercise, walking, or swimming for 30–60 minutes at least three days/week), reducing dietary salt, total fat, and cholesterol, limiting caffeine, alcohol, red meat, sweets and sugary beverages, avoiding smoking, and managing stress [45]. Notably, the same risk factors contribute to diseases such as CVD, DM, and CKD. Inter-relationships among these medical conditions are well established and risk predictions for them have been actively researched. Since hypertension is a common risk factor in all of these conditions, BP measurement and education could be a first step to prediction, risk assessment and prevention and management of CVD, DM and CKD. The validated risk tool effectively stratified individuals by hypertension risk and identified those with current elevated BP. While not a diagnostic tool, it shows promise for community-based screening and triage in resource-limited settings

Limitations

Incomplete surveys were a limitation in this study; Approximately 1000 surveys were distributed, and 932 participants answered all of the questions. Because questionnaires were anonymous, we were unable to contact participants for follow-up; we wish to conduct a longitudinal or prospective study in the future to ascertain predictive accuracy. Students received short training on BP measurement technique but no formal proficiency assessment was conducted. This may have introduced inter-observer variability in measurements. Not all BP elevators were considered in this study, including stress, caffeine, and alcohol intake, which are difficult to measure accurately. Exclusion of stress as a factor for elevating BP, is also explaining its methodological challenges. Previously, there were no unique determinants or risk assessments for the Jordanian population to reflect on, so we used tools from abroad. Next, a single or multiple BP measurement collected with the BP machine Omron™ from a majority of participants at a single time point for this community study could be insufficient to detect hypertension accurately (office use in this setting). This approach of measuring was a compromise to balance resource constraints and measurement reliability in a large-scale community-based study. Lastly, a convenience sample may not represent a target population, such as the wider university family, Amman, or Jordanian population.

Yet, the wide age range and a relatively large sample size of over 900 participants representing diverse sociodemographic groups can be a strength. Utilizing pharmacy students to assist with BP measurement and survey completion adds to the quality and reliability of data; if participant’s self-assessment was utilized alone, measurement error/misclassification would be more likely but wider implementation is possible. These study features may inform future design and planning of community screening programs and toward an optimal use of patient-centered risk assessment tools. To our knowledge, this is the first study of its kind in Arab Middle Eastern country, Jordan, and may provide a model example for real-world screening, risk assessment, referral for treatment/clinician, and research. Jordan’s National Strategy for Non-Communicable Diseases recommends opportunistic BP screening in primary care settings. However, systematic community-based screening programs remain limited, highlighting the need for our approach. The lack of a standardized protocol for multiple BP measurements at fixed intervals may have introduced measurement variability, though we attempted to minimize this by taking additional readings for abnormal results.

Additional limitations include potential recall bias in self-reported variables such as exercise habits, which may lead to underestimation of these risk factors. Furthermore, the variability in BP measurement methods, including the lack of standardized timing between readings and potential differences in cuff positioning or participant preparation across multiple student measurers, may have introduced measurement bias. Although students received training, inter-observer variability cannot be excluded.“

Conclusion

Hypertension is a vastly important but poorly controlled public health problem in Amman, Jordan. Almost 70% of study participants met the AHA criteria for a diagnosis of prehypertension or hypertension but they were likely unaware of their (pre)hypertension status. Policymakers and healthcare practitioners in Jordan must discuss an evidence-based practice effort to prevent and test for hypertension in a larger scale and associated health services issues. We used a validated tool to predict/estimate hypertension risk and collect subjects’ current BP along with demographic and clinical risk factors. Our study demonstrated the feasibility of using a risk-scoring instrument in a community setting and generated some valuable knowledge for the purposes of health education, screening, and prevention. Our team hopes to develop targeted screenings for hypertension and related chronic diseases and to evaluate the risk-benefit and cost-effectiveness in Jordan, which could inform similar efforts in resource-limited settings worldwide.

Transparent, evidence-based, validated, and easily accessible tools could be helpful to facilitate patient-provider communication. Used as a low-cost, first-step approach, the self-administered (pre)screening tool can raise public awareness about hypertension, improve BP control, delay or prevent hypertension, and potentially reduce high-cost cardiovascular and renal complications in Jordan and beyond.

Supporting information

S1 Table. 3-, 6-, and 9-year Risk of Incident Hypertension by Baseline Factors and Total Risk Score.

(PDF)

pone.0345013.s001.pdf (90.5KB, pdf)
S2 Table. Raw data variables.

(XLSX)

pone.0345013.s002.xlsx (72.1KB, xlsx)
S1 Questionnaire. Hypertension screening survey.

(PDF)

pone.0345013.s003.pdf (832.1KB, pdf)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

H.B. was partly supported by the National Institutes of Health through grants UL1 TR001860. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. There was no additional external funding received for this study.

References

  • 1.Lee SA, Park H, Kim W, Song SO, Lim H, Chun S-Y. The effect of chronic disease management program on the risk of complications in patients with hypertension in Korea. J Korean Med Sci. 2022;37(31):e243. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2022.37.e243 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Manoilov AE. Diagnosis, prognosis, monitoring of cardiac complications of arterial hypertension. Hypertens Heart Dis. Kardiologiia. 2016;56(11):38–42. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Miller-Hodges E, Dominiczak AF, Jennings GLR, Oparil S, Batlle DC, Elijovich F, et al. Hypertension and its complications in a young man with autoimmune disease. Hypertension. 2017;69(4):536–44. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.117.09036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Alekseeva LA, Vakhlakov AN, Sergeeva EV, Perov YL, Gasilin BC, Chorbinskaia SA, et al. Fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular complications in patients with essential hypertension (hypertensive disease) during follow-up for many years. Kardiologiia. 2002;42(4):23–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kshirsagar AV, Carpenter M, Bang H, Wyatt SB, Colindres RE. Blood pressure usually considered normal is associated with an elevated risk of cardiovascular disease. Am J Med. 2006;119(2):133–41. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.08.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Jarab AS, Hamam HW, Al-Qerem WA, Heshmeh SRA, Mukattash TL. Blood pressure control and its associated factors among patients with heart failure in Jordan. J Hum Hypertens. 2023;37(11):977–84. doi: 10.1038/s41371-023-00807-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Tailakh A, Evangelista LS, Mentes JC, Pike NA, Phillips LR, Morisky DE. Hypertension prevalence, awareness, and control in Arab countries: a systematic review. Nurs Health Sci. 2014;16(1):126–30. doi: 10.1111/nhs.12060 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Khader Y, Batieha A, Jaddou H. Hypertension in Jordan: prevalence, awareness, control, and its associated factors. Int J Hypertens. 2019;2019:3210617. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Alhawari H, AlShelleh S, Alhawari H, AlRyalat SA, Khanfar AN, Alzoubi O. Prevalence of undiagnosed hypertension and its predictors in Jordan: a cross-sectional study. Int J Gen Med. 2022;15:7919–28. doi: 10.2147/IJGM.S388121 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kang E, Sugarman R, Ramadan H, Mueller A, Shahul S, Perdigao JL, et al. Prevalence, risk factors and associated complications of postpartum hypertension in rural Haiti. Pregnancy Hypertens. 2017;10:135–42. doi: 10.1016/j.preghy.2017.07.143 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Barati L, Radgoodarzi M, Vakili M, Tabatabaizadeh M. Overweight and obesity: worldwide risk factors for pediatric hypertension. ARYA Atheroscler. 2022;18(1):1–6. doi: 10.48305/arya.v18i1.2242 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Acharyya T, Kaur P, Murhekar MV. Prevalence of behavioral risk factors, overweight and hypertension in the urban slums of North 24 Parganas District, West Bengal, India, 2010. Indian J Public Health. 2014;58(3):195–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Maniecka-Bryla I, Szymocha M, Bryla M. Overweight and obesity as risk factors in hypertension--study of the working population. Med Lav. 2011;102(6):523–38. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Nascimento Kluczynik Vieira CE, Soares Mariz L, Azevêdo Dantas DN, Cunha de Menezes DJ, Dantas Rêgo MC, Cruz Enders B. Association between risk factors for hypertension and the Nursing Diagnosis overweight in adolescents. Invest Educ Enferm. 2016;34(2):305–13. doi: 10.17533/udea.iee.v34n2a10 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Zhang Y, Xu G, Wang P. Smoking, hypertension, and GG genotype of the IL-6 rs1800796 polymorphism are independent risk factors for abdominal aortic aneurysm in han population. Pharmgenomics Pers Med. 2021;14:1115–21. doi: 10.2147/PGPM.S328894 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Liang J, Fu Z, Liu Q, Shen Y, Zhang X, Weng Z, et al. Interactions among maternal smoking, breastfeeding, and offspring genetic factors on the risk of adult-onset hypertension. BMC Med. 2022;20(1):454. doi: 10.1186/s12916-022-02648-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Shah H, Altaf A, Salahuddin M, Ullah Jan M, Khan A. Cardiovascular risk factors of hypertension, smoking and obesity: emerging concerns among Pathan and Persian young adults?. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2018;32:129. doi: 10.14196/mjiri.32.129 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Altobelli E, Petrocelli R, Maccarone M, Altomare G, Argenziano G, Giannetti A, et al. Risk factors of hypertension, diabetes and obesity in Italian psoriasis patients: a survey on socio-demographic characteristics, smoking habits and alcohol consumption. Eur J Dermatol. 2009;19(3):252–6. doi: 10.1684/ejd.2009.0644 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Zaki NAM, Ambak R, Othman F, Wong NI, Man CS, Morad MFA, et al. The prevalence of hypertension among Malaysian adults and its associated risk factors: data from Malaysian Community Salt Study (MyCoSS). J Health Popul Nutr. 2021;40(Suppl 1):8. doi: 10.1186/s41043-021-00237-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Awadalla H, Elmak NE, El-Sayed EF, Almobarak AO, Elmadhoun WM, Osman M, et al. Hypertension in Sudanese individuals and associated risk factors: the critical intersection between salt and sugar intake. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2018;8(4):432–8. doi: 10.21037/cdt.2018.04.05 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kwon Y-J, Kim JO, Park J-M, Choi J-E, Park D-H, Song Y, et al. Identification of genetic factors underlying the association between sodium intake habits and hypertension risk. Nutrients. 2020;12(9):2580. doi: 10.3390/nu12092580 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Sarkar A, Roy D, Chauhan MM, Dave P, Makwana NR, Parmar DV. A lay epidemiological study on coexistent stress in hypertension: its prevalence, risk factors, and implications in patients’ lives. J Family Med Prim Care. 2019;8(3):966–71. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_60_19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bojar I, Humeniuk E, Owoc A, Wierzba W, Wojtyła A. Exposing women to workplace stress factors as a risk factor for developing arterial hypertension. Ann Agric Environ Med. 2011;18(1):175–82. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Schuler JL, O’Brien WH. Cardiovascular recovery from stress and hypertension risk factors: a meta-analytic review. Psychophysiology. 1997;34(6):649–59. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1997.tb02141.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.al’Absi M, Everson SA, Lovallo WR. Hypertension risk factors and cardiovascular reactivity to mental stress in young men. Int J Psychophysiol. 1995;20(3):155–60. doi: 10.1016/0167-8760(95)00029-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Saeed S, Ali AM, Mahmoud MA, Nilsson PM. Risk factors of newly detected and masked untreated hypertension in a South Asian population of Type-2 diabetes patients. Pak J Med Sci. 2023;39(3):631–3. doi: 10.12669/pjms.39.3.7666 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Silva AM da, Carmo AS do, Alves VP, Carvalho LSF de. Prevalence of non-communicable chronic diseases: arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and associated risk factors in long-lived elderly people. Rev Bras Enferm. 2023;76(4):e20220592. doi: 10.1590/0034-7167-2022-0592 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Echouffo-Tcheugui JB, Batty GD, Kivimäki M, Kengne AP. Risk models to predict hypertension: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e67370. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067370 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Stolfo D, Albani S, Biondi F, De Luca A, Barbati G, Howard L, et al. Global right heart assessment with speckle-tracking imaging improves the risk prediction of a validated scoring system in pulmonary arterial hypertension. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2020;33(11):1334-1344.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.echo.2020.05.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bang H, Edwards AM, Bomback AS, Ballantyne CM, Brillon D, Callahan MA, et al. Development and validation of a patient self-assessment score for diabetes risk. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(11):775–83. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-11-200912010-00005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Meng L, Kwon KS, Kim DJ. Performance of diabetes and kidney disease screening scores in contemporary United States and Korean populations. Diabetes Metab J. 2022;46(2):273–85. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Kshirsagar AV, Chiu Y-L, Bomback AS, August PA, Viera AJ, Colindres RE, et al. A hypertension risk score for middle-aged and older adults. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2010;12(10):800–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-7176.2010.00343.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Akl C, Akik C, Ghattas H, Obermeyer CM. The cascade of care in managing hypertension in the Arab world: a systematic assessment of the evidence on awareness, treatment and control. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):835. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-08678-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.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]
  • 35.Banigbe BF, Itanyi IU, Ofili EO, Ogidi AG, Patel D, Ezeanolue EE. High prevalence of undiagnosed hypertension among men in North Central Nigeria: Results from the Healthy Beginning Initiative. PLoS One. 2020;15(11):e0242870. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242870 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Eshah NF, Bond AE, Froelicher ES. The effects of a cardiovascular disease prevention program on knowledge and adoption of a heart healthy lifestyle in Jordanian working adults. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2010;9(4):244–53. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcnurse.2010.02.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Bakris G, Ali W, Parati G. ACC/AHA versus ESC/ESH on Hypertension Guidelines: JACC Guideline Comparison. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(23):3018–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Bell K, Doust J, McGeechan K, Horvath AR, Barratt A, Hayen A, et al. The potential for overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis because of blood pressure variability: a comparison of the 2017 ACC/AHA, 2018 ESC/ESH and 2019 NICE hypertension guidelines. J Hypertens. 2021;39(2):236–42. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000002614 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Mills KT, 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]
  • 40.Srivastava A, Mirza TM, Vaqar S. Prehypertension. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing. 2024. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Kyngäs H, Lahdenperä T. Compliance of patients with hypertension and associated factors. J Adv Nurs. 1999;29(4):832–9. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1999.00962.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Lahdenperä TS, Kyngäs HA. Levels of compliance shown by hypertensive patients and their attitude toward their illness. J Adv Nurs. 2001;34(2):189–95. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01744.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Buttar HS, Li T, Ravi N. Prevention of cardiovascular diseases: Role of exercise, dietary interventions, obesity and smoking cessation. Exp Clin Cardiol. 2005;10(4):229–49. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Cleven L, Krell-Roesch J, Nigg CR, Woll A. The association between physical activity with incident obesity, coronary heart disease, diabetes and hypertension in adults: a systematic review of longitudinal studies published after 2012. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):726. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-08715-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Sacks FM, Svetkey LP, Vollmer WM, et al. Effects on blood pressure of reduced dietary sodium and the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(1):3–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Zypher Jude Regencia

8 Jul 2025

Dear Dr. Khaleel,

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 Aug 22 2025 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.

  • 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,

Zypher Jude G. Regencia, 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 include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met. Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“H.B. was partly supported by the National Institutes of Health

through grants UL1 TR001860. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does

not represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health”

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

“H.B. was partly supported by the National Institutes of Health

through grants UL1 TR001860. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does

not represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health”

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. In the online submission form, you indicated that “The datasets used and analyzed for this study are available from the first author upon reasonable request.”

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

7. 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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Overall, good paper but major improvements can be made to improve overall output

However, there are a few clarifications:

1. the objective states "identify undiagnosed cases of hypertension in the general public

using a risk-scoring tool for elevated BP and hypertension"

- it wasn't clear in the methods how the use of risk scoring tool identified undiagnosed cases of hypertension

- the methods essentially said that the study got the risk score and got the BP (and not used the risk score to identify undiagnosed hypertension as the objective and title imply

that being said may be the title and objective should reflect that was an identification of the prevalence of hypertension and estimating risk using the risk-scoring tool.

2. There was no standardization of the BP app used - pls indicate the model and why this was used - cite references that it is validated for office use

3. There was no standardization on the times BP was taken. Please indicate reason why this was not protocolized

4. Results separated systolic and diastolic hypertension. Is there a reason for this? Why not use the standard definitions only for hypertension as the summary result?

5. Suggest to do analytical statistics correlating HIGH risk score (>17) with incident hypertension at present (BP >140/90). This is a simple 2x2 table

6. Suggest to include analytics of the profile of those with HIGH score >17, and use that as jumping point for meaningful discussion on the timing of screening using the questionnaire.

7. Improve discussion to include suggested analytical analysis

8. Suggest to include recall bias in the limitations of the study (there were questions about salt intake and exercise) and bias of the methods of BP measurement

9. In conclusion gramatical error: switch "unlikely aware" to "likely unaware"

10. Improve abstract based on ALL comments above

Reviewer #2: Here are a few comments for the attention of the Authors:

After reading this part of the methods “Students participated in this study and also distributed questionnaires randomly to their family members and friends/neighbors and were instructed to invite persons without known hypertension” I am still confused as to what kind of recruitment strategy was used to select the students (I see serious selection bias)

Its is not very clear how the study process went. Questionnaires were administered first? Then they came to where to get BP measured? Please clarify these in the write up

The protocol followed in assessing the blood pressure doesn’t seem quite standard. Why are some people measured once, some twice and some thrice? Meanwhile, what is the meaning of abnormal reading? Please state the reference for the protocol used.

In the last sentence of the statistical analyses, it was stated that A score of ≥17 points was considered a high risk of developing hypertension according to the cutoff value proposed by Kshirsagar et al.’s validated risk assessment tool, developed and applied previously in the US population and currently to the Jordanian population.” This shouldn’t be a part of the statistical analyses. Rather it should be moved upwards and more detail provided. E.g. what is the minimum score obtainable?

No need repeating the entire results in the Table and the narration. E.g. male and female percentages (one is enough).

Results of those in Amman and other provinces is not relevant.

Why is there a citation at the last sentence of the results section?

Conclusion should be kept short. Most of the content there should go to discussion

**********

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: Yes: Jibril Mohammed

[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.]

- - - - -

For journal use only: PONEDEC3

PLoS One. 2026 Mar 23;21(3):e0345013. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0345013.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


10 Sep 2025

Point-by-Point Response to the Reviewers

Response to Reviewers

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-25-06643

Title: Use of a Risk Assessment Questionnaire to Identify Individuals with Hypertension in a Community-based Screening in Amman, Jordan

We thank the Editor and Reviewers for their time and constructive comments, which have helped us to improve the quality and clarity of our manuscript. Below we provide a detailed, point-by-point response. Reviewer comments are reproduced in bold, followed by our responses in regular font. All changes have been incorporated in the revised manuscript.

Response to Editor

• E1: 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

Response E1: All manuscript revised, style now according to journal requirement.

• E1: Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met. Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

Not relevant

• E1: We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

We are arranging that in resubmission, we will confirm the funding information.

• E1: Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “H.B. was partly supported by the National Institutes of Health through grants UL1 TR001860. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health” Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

All correct statements of funders and their roles are mentioned, in cover letter and manuscript and submission system.

• E1:Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: “H.B. was partly supported by the National Institutes of Health through grants UL1 TR001860. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health” Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Included

• E1:Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Included

• E1:In the online submission form, you indicated that “The datasets used and analyzed for this study are available from the first author upon reasonable request.” All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

We chose: 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

• E1: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.

The manuscript has been entirely revised to meet the formatting requirements specified by the journal.

Response to Reviewers

Reviewer #1:

Overall, good paper but major improvements can be made to improve overall output

However, there are a few clarifications:

• R1: the objective states "identify undiagnosed cases of hypertension in the general public using a risk-scoring tool for elevated BP and hypertension" - it wasn't clear in the methods how the use of risk scoring tool identified undiagnosed cases of hypertension - the methods essentially said that the study got the risk score and got the BP (and not used the risk score to identify undiagnosed hypertension as the objective and title imply that being said may be the title and objective should reflect that was an identification of the prevalence of hypertension and estimating risk using the risk-scoring tool.

We appreciate this important clarification. You are correct that our original phrasing was misleading. We have revised both the title and objective to accurately reflect our study design:

Revised Title: "Prevalence of Undiagnosed Hypertension and Risk Assessment Using a Validated Questionnaire in Community-based Screening in Amman, Jordan"

Revised Objective: "The current study aimed to identify the prevalence of undiagnosed hypertension and assess future hypertension risk using a validated risk-scoring tool in the general public in Amman, Jordan."

We have also clarified in the abstract and methods that we conducted BP measurements to identify current undiagnosed hypertension AND separately used the risk-scoring tool to assess future hypertension risk among participants. This dual approach provides both immediate clinical value (identifying those who need treatment now) and preventive value (identifying those at high risk who need monitoring and lifestyle interventions).

Standardization of BP measurement device

• R1: There was no standardization of the BP app used - please indicate the model and why this was used - cite references that it is validated for office use.

Thank you for highlighting this important methodological detail. We have added the following information to the Methods section:

Pharmacy students helped to measure and record resting BP using the Omron™ BP measuring electronic machine (Model: LM Model, Approval No: IND/09/21/814, Omron Healthcare, Osaka, Japan). This model has been validated for clinical use according to international protocols and is recommended by the European Society of Hypertension for office BP measurements. Reference is ESH (European Society of Hypertension), also OMRON products are validated by the American Medical Association, see https://omronhealthcare.com/clinical-validation

• R1: There was no standardization on the times BP was taken. Please indicate reason why this was not protocolized.

We acknowledge this limitation and have expanded our discussion (page-14) and amended protocols in the Methods section (page-5):

"BP was generally measured once; if the result was abnormal (SBP ≥130 mmHg or DBP ≥80 mmHg), a second reading was taken after a 1-2 minute rest period, and then the two readings were averaged. Infrequently, three readings were taken and averaged when there was >10 mmHg difference between the first two readings. While standardized multiple readings at fixed intervals (e.g., 3 readings at 1-minute intervals) are ideal for BP diagnosis, this approach was not feasible (extra burden and inconvenient) in our community-based screening setting due to time constraints and the large number of participants. This pragmatic approach balances accuracy with feasibility in resource-limited community settings, though we acknowledge this as a limitation."

We have also added this to the Limitations section: "The lack of a standardized protocol for multiple BP measurements at fixed intervals may have introduced measurement variability, though we attempted to minimize this by taking additional readings for abnormal results. "

Results separated systolic and diastolic hypertension.

• R1: Is there a reason for this? Why not use the standard definitions only for hypertension as the summary result?

For the sake of Data Granularity, in our cohort, some participants met criteria for only SBP or DBP elevation. Separating these allowed us to explore whether the risk score predicted one subtype more strongly. We agree that the standard definition of hypertension (SBP ≥140 or DBP ≥90) is critical for clinical diagnosis, and we aimed to provide additional nuance for research purposes. For transparency, we included the hypertension outcomes (SBP ≥140 or DBP ≥90).

Analytical statistics for high risk score vs. current hypertension

• R1: Suggest to do analytical statistics correlating HIGH risk score (>17) with incident hypertension at present (BP >140/90). This is a simple 2x2 table.

We thank the reviewer for this excellent suggestion. We have added the following analysis to the Results section:

To examine the relationship between high-risk scores and current hypertension status, we conducted a 2x2 contingency table analysis.

Participants with risk scores ≥17 (n=39) were those who had current hypertension (BP ≥140/90 mmHg), the high-risk and lower-risk participants are summarized in Table 5.

analytics of the profile of those with HIGH score >17

• R1: Suggest to include analytics of the profile of those with HIGH score >17, and use that as jumping point for meaningful discussion on the timing of screening using the questionnaire.

Those were categorized as high risk at the time of screening. We have added a new subsection in the Results:

Characteristics of High-Risk Participants (Score ≥17)

Among the 39 participants with risk scores ≥17, the following characteristics were observed:

• Mean age: 58 years (SD ±9)

• Female: 38%

• Current smokers: 29%

• Family history of hypertension: 72%

• BMI ≥30: 54%

• Diabetes: 31%

• No regular exercise: 67%

Improve discussion based on analytical analysis

• R1: Improve the discussion to include suggested analytical analysis.

We have substantially revised the Discussion section.

Our analysis revealed that participants with risk scores ≥17 were added extensively.

Based on our findings, we propose a risk-stratified screening approach:

High risk (score ≥17):

Moderate risk (score 11-16):

Low risk (score <11):

This approach could optimize resource allocation in resource-limited settings while ensuring timely detection of hypertension among those at highest risk."

Additional limitations

• R1: Suggest to include recall bias in the limitations of the study (there were questions about salt intake and exercise) and bias of the methods of BP measurement.

We agree with you and have expanded the Limitations section:

"Additional limitations include potential recall bias in self-reported variables such as exercise habits, which may lead to underestimation of these risk factors. Furthermore, the variability in BP measurement methods, including the lack of standardized timing between readings and potential differences in cuff positioning or participant preparation across multiple student measurers, may have introduced measurement bias. Although students received training, inter-observer variability cannot be excluded."

Grammatical correction

• R1: In conclusion grammatical error: switch "unlikely aware" to "likely unaware"

Thank you for catching this issue. We have corrected the sentence to read: "Almost 70% of study participants met the AHA criteria for a diagnosis of prehypertension or hypertension but they were likely unaware of their (pre)hypertension status."

Abstract revision

• R1: Improve abstract based on ALL comments above.

We have comprehensively revised the abstract to address all points. See the revised Abstract.

We believe these revisions substantially strengthen the manuscript and address all of the reviewers' concerns. We appreciate the opportunity to improve our work based on this constructive feedback. We will be glad to listen to additional advice if any.

Reviewer #2: Here are a few comments for the attention of the Authors:

After reading this part of the methods “Students participated in this study and also distributed questionnaires randomly to their family members and friends/neighbors and were instructed to invite persons without known hypertension” I am still confused as to what kind of recruitment strategy was used to select the students (I see serious selection bias)

• R2: Its is not very clear how the study process went. Questionnaires were administered first? Then they came to where to get BP measured? Please clarify these in the write up

We acknowledge this important concern. We used convenience sampling through pharmacy students at the University of Petra. Students were recruited voluntarily from the Faculty of Pharmacy and then distributed questionnaires to their family members, friends/and neighbors. We recognize this can introduce selection bias, which we now explicitly acknowledge in the Limitations section (page 11): "Lastly, a convenience sample may not represent a target population, such as the wider university family, Amman, or Jordanian population."

• R2: "It's not very clear how the study process went. Questionnaires were administered first? Then they came to where to get BP measured?"

We have clarified the process in the Methods section.

The questionnaire administration and BP measurement co-occurred during the same visit. Pharmacy students helped participants’ complete questionnaires and measured their BP at the same time.

We added this clarification page 5: "Data collection occurred in a single visit where participants completed the questionnaire with assistance from trained pharmacy students who also measured their blood pressure during the same session."

• R2: "The protocol followed in assessing the blood pressure doesn't seem quite standard. Why are some people measured once, some twice and some thrice? Meanwhile, what is the meaning of an elevated BP reading?"

We acknowledge this limitation. The protocol was:

• First measurement taken for all participants

• If the reading was elevated (SBP ≥120 or DBP ≥80 mmHg), a second reading was taken

• Rarely, if readings were higher than normal, a third measurement was taken

• "elevated or high" refers to any reading outside the normal range (SBP <120 and DBP <80)

We recognize this is not the medical usual standard (multiple readings on different days) but was a compromise for a large community-based screening. This is acknowledged in our Limitations section (lines 302-305).

• R2: "The sentence about score ≥17 points... shouldn't be part of statistical analyses"

We agree. This information about the risk scoring system should be moved to the Risk Assessment Tool section where the scoring system is described. The minimum obtainable score is 0 points, and the maximum is approximately 30 points, which we clarified in that section. These sentences have been removed from statistical analysis.

• R2: "No need repeating the entire results in the Table and the narration". Results of those in Amman and other provinces is not relevant.

We agree that some repetition ex

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

pone.0345013.s004.docx (29.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Nour Elsahoryi

25 Dec 2025

Dear Dr.  Khaleel,

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 Feb 08 2026 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.

  • A 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,

Nour Amin Elsahoryi, pHD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

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

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: 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??>

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

Reviewer #1: All previous comments were addressed but there are more comments which I would like to highlight

1. Label Abstracts components accordingly for easier reading. Background and Objectives. Methods. Results. Conclusion.

2. Abstract can still be improved to be more clear.

3. Include a flowchart of the participants (from questionnaire distrbution until final analysis)

4. Be EXACT in the questionnaires distributed, do NOT say "approximately 1000..."

5. Table 3 is a bit too distracting. Suggest to append and write in text form the important findings from this tabl

6. Suggest to append Fig 1 as well

7. What is the basis for "risk stratified screening approach". Also this statement is wrongly placed as it should be a point for discussion rather than a result.

8. Re Contingency Table, pls add important parameters like OR and Sn/Sp of the risk strat tool for current hypertension

9. Briefly discuss the current Jordan policy on hypertension screening if there is. The discussion sounds like there is currently no program in place.

10. Include the MODEL of the OMRON BP App

11. Was there an assessment of proficiency test done on the students or teaching was assumed to be effective without proper post teaching assesment?

12. Discussion can still be improved to highlight the importance of the risk factors. Focus the discussion on the identified risk factors in the study and the prevalence of these as well and how it can be addressed.

13. Suggest to discuss about the "high risk scorers" without current hypertension

14. Suggest to remove sentence on health information overload in the conclusion as this was never discussed previously in the paper

15. Focus on the basics of research. The objective should answer your clinical/epidemiologic question, the methods should justify the answering of the objective -> the conclusion should answer the objective.

Reviewer #3: I thank the editors for giving me the opportunity to re review the manuscript entitled Prevalence of Undiagnosed Hypertension and Risk Assessment Using a Validated Survey in Community-based Screening in Amman, Jordan

The authors have adequately addressed all the comments given by the previous reviewers ,I have no comments to add .The manuscript can be considered for publication without any further modification

**********

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: Jerahmeel Aleson L. Mapili

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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 Mar 23;21(3):e0345013. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0345013.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


3 Jan 2026

Point-by-Point Response to the Reviewers

Response to Reviewers

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-25-06643

Title: Use of a Risk Assessment Questionnaire to Identify Individuals with Hypertension in a Community-based Screening in Amman, Jordan

We thank the Editor and Reviewers for their time and constructive comments, which have helped us to improve the quality and clarity of our manuscript. Below we provide a detailed, point-by-point response. Reviewer comments are reproduced in bold, followed by our responses in regular font. All changes have been incorporated in the revised manuscript.

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: All previous comments were addressed but there are more comments which I would like to highlight

Response to Reviewers

Reviewer #1:

All previous comments were addressed but there are more comments which I would like to highlight

• R1: Label Abstracts components accordingly for easier reading. Background and Objectives. Methods. Results. Conclusion

1. Abstract structure: We have restructured the abstract with clear labels:

• Background and Objectives

• Methods

• Results

• Conclusion

• R1: 2. Abstract can still be improved to be more clear

The abstract has been revised for clarity, focusing on key findings and removing redundancy.

• R1: 3. Include a flowchart of the participants (from questionnaire distribution until final analysis)

Participant flowchart: A CONSORT-style flowchart has been added as Figure 1, showing questionnaire distribution (n=1000) → responses received (n=932) → excluded for incomplete data (n=68) → final analysis (n=932).

Added flowchart figure per reviewer request

• R1: 4. Be EXACT in the questionnaires distributed, do NOT say "approximately 1000..."

Exact questionnaire numbers: Corrected to: "A total 1000 questionnaires were distributed" (removed "approximately").

• R1: 5. Table 3 is a bit too distracting. Suggest to append and write in text form the important findings from this table

Table 3: Table 3 has been moved to supplementary materials. Key findings are now presented in text and Figure 2

• R1: 6. Suggest to append Fig 1 as well

Figure 1: The original Figure 1 (risk distribution) has been moved to supplementary materials.

• R1 7. What is the basis for "risk stratified screening approach". Also this statement is wrongly placed as it should be a point for discussion rather than a result.

This section has been moved from Results to Discussion

• R1 8.Re Contingency Table, pls add important parameters like OR and Sn/Sp of the risk strat tool for current hypertension

Added to Table 4:

OR: 19.3 (95% CI: 9.2-40.4, p<0.001), Sensitivity: 62.8%, Specificity: 96.2%, PPV: 64.8%, NPV: 95.8%

• R1: 9. Briefly discuss the current Jordan policy on hypertension screening if there is. The discussion sounds like there is currently no program in place.

Added to Discussion: "Jordan's National Strategy for Non-Communicable Diseases recommends opportunistic BP screening in primary care settings. However, systematic community-based screening programs remain limited, highlighting the need for our approach."

• R1: 10. Include the MODEL of the OMRON BP App

Added: "Omron HEM-907XL IntelliSense Professional"

• R1: 11. Was there an assessment of proficiency test done on the students or teaching was assumed to be effective without proper post teaching assesment?

No

Student proficiency was not verified

• R1: 12. Discussion can still be improved to highlight the importance of the risk factors. Focus the discussion on the identified risk factors in the study and the prevalence of these as well and how it can be addressed.

Enhanced Discussion focuses on modifiable risk factors: "The high rates of modifiable risk factors, namely physical inactivity (62%), smoking (38%), and obesity (21%), show that there are high opportunities for targeted interventions. The existing tobacco control programs in Jordan will be of special benefit to this group."

• R1: 13. Suggest to discuss about the "high risk scorers" without current hypertension

Added to Discussion: "Notably, 16/39 (41%) high-risk scorers did not have current diagnosed hypertension, representing a significant prevention opportunity. These individuals require intensive lifestyle counseling and frequent BP monitoring."

• R1: 14Suggest to remove sentence on health information overload in the conclusion as this was never discussed previously in the paper

This phrase has been removed from the Conclusion.

• R1:15. Focus on the basics of research. The objective should answer your clinical/epidemiologic question, the methods should justify the answering of the objective -> the conclusion should answer the objective

• Objective: "This study assessed the prevalence of undiagnosed hypertension through blood pressure measurement and evaluated future hypertension risk using a validated survey in a community setting."

• Methods: Aligned to address both prevalence and validation

• Conclusion: "Our community screening revealed a high prevalence of undiagnosed hypertension (20.6%) and identified a substantial proportion at high risk for future hypertension"

All changes are highlighted in the revised manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers_auresp_2.docx

pone.0345013.s005.docx (22.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Nour Elsahoryi

6 Jan 2026

Dear Dr. Khaleel,

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 Feb 20 2026 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.

  • A 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 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,

Nour Amin Elsahoryi, pHD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

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:

Thank you for the revision—overall, the paper is now publishable. Only minor points remain:

Abstract clarity: The “Methods” sentence is still grammatically unclear and should be rewritten to describe exactly what was done (BP measurement + risk score survey in the same visit), without redundancy.

Study process and recruitment: Keep the description simple and explicit (how students were recruited; how participants were approached; questionnaire and BP measured in the same session). Maintain cautious language about generalizability due to convenience sampling.

BP measurement protocol: Ensure consistent definitions and thresholds across the manuscript (normal/elevated/stage categories), and keep the pragmatic repeat-reading approach clearly described. Emphasize the limitation of non-standardized repeated readings and potential inter-observer variability.

Student training/proficiency: Since proficiency testing was not verified, state this clearly as a limitation (training provided, but no formal competency assessment).

Risk tool performance reporting: Make sure the contingency analysis outputs (e.g., OR and screening performance metrics) are presented consistently in the Results/Tables and interpreted conservatively (screening/stratification utility rather than diagnostic certainty).

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

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 Mar 23;21(3):e0345013. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0345013.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 3


14 Feb 2026

• Abstract Methods: Clear sequential description of what was done

• Recruitment: Explicit student volunteer process stated

• BP protocol: Pragmatic repeat-reading approach with acknowledged limitations • Training: Clearly stated as limitation (no proficiency testing)

• Risk tool: Conservative language emphasizing screening/stratification utility

Figures were made available in 300dpi and

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers_auresp_3.docx

pone.0345013.s006.docx (24.2KB, docx)

Decision Letter 3

Nour Elsahoryi

2 Mar 2026

Prevalence of Undiagnosed Hypertension and Risk Assessment Using a Validated Survey in Community-based Screening in Amman, Jordan

PONE-D-25-06643R3

Dear Dr,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Nour Amin Elsahoryi, pHD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The revised manuscript demonstrates substantial improvement in structure, clarity, and methodological transparency. The objective is now appropriately aligned with the study design, and the distinction between identifying undiagnosed hypertension through BP measurement and estimating future risk using the validated tool is clearly articulated.

The inclusion of analytical performance metrics (OR, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV) meaningfully strengthens the evaluation of the risk tool. The expanded discussion on high-risk participants without current hypertension adds important preventive implications. Limitations regarding convenience sampling, recall bias, and non-standardized BP measurement intervals are appropriately acknowledged.

The manuscript now presents a coherent and balanced interpretation of findings and is suitable for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Nour Elsahoryi

PONE-D-25-06643R3

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Khaleel,

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

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

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. Nour Amin Elsahoryi

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 Table. 3-, 6-, and 9-year Risk of Incident Hypertension by Baseline Factors and Total Risk Score.

    (PDF)

    pone.0345013.s001.pdf (90.5KB, pdf)
    S2 Table. Raw data variables.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0345013.s002.xlsx (72.1KB, xlsx)
    S1 Questionnaire. Hypertension screening survey.

    (PDF)

    pone.0345013.s003.pdf (832.1KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    pone.0345013.s004.docx (29.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers_auresp_2.docx

    pone.0345013.s005.docx (22.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers_auresp_3.docx

    pone.0345013.s006.docx (24.2KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES