Thailand.
Methods | Uncontrolled pre‐post | |
Participants | National Nutrition Survey 1960: individuals from military and civilian populations living in households with children younger than 5 years of age National Nutrition Survey 1975: individuals from military and civilian populations living in households with children younger than 5 years of age National Nutrition Survey 2003: individuals from military and civilian populations living in households with children younger than 5 years of age Report of sodium consumption in Thai diet survey 2008: unknown Fourth Thai National Health Examination Survey 2008‐2009: multi‐stage, stratified random sample of individuals 15+ years of age based on population registers |
|
Interventions | Salt reduction initiative started in 2006. Efforts included:
|
|
Outcomes | National Nutrition Survey 1960: mean sodium intake (grams/d) estimated via a dietary survey National Nutrition Survey 1975: mean sodium intake (grams/d) estimated via a dietary survey National Nutrition Survey 2003: mean sodium intake (grams/d) estimated via a dietary survey (food list recall and food frequency checklist of foods/condiments) Report of sodium consumption in Thai diet survey 2008: mean sodium intake (grams/d) estimated via a dietary survey (household survey) Fourth Thai National Health Examination Survey 2008‐2009: mean sodium intake (grams/d) estimated via a dietary survey (food list recall and food frequency checklist of foods/condiments) |
|
Axes of inequality | National Nutrition Survey 1960: none National Nutrition Survey 1975: none National Nutrition Survey 2003: none Report of sodium consumption in Thai diet survey 2008: none Fourth Thai National Health Examination Survey 2008‐2009: none |
|
Sample size and response rate | National Nutrition Survey 1960: sample size and response rate unknown National Nutrition Survey 1975: sample size and response rate unknown National Nutrition Survey 2003: sample size and response rate unknown Report of sodium consumption in Thai diet survey 2008: sample size and response rate unknown Fourth Thai National Health Examination Survey 2008‐2009: n = 20,450; 93.1% RR (overall survey) |
|
Funding source / Conflict of Interest (COI) | National Nutrition Survey 1960: funding source unknown/no COI statement provided National Nutrition Survey 1975: funding source unknown/no COI statement provided National Nutrition Survey 2003: funding source unknown/no COI statement provided Report of sodium consumption in Thai diet survey 2008: funding source unknown/no COI statement provided Fourth Thai National Health Examination Survey 2008‐2009: funding source unknown/no COI statement provided |
|
Notes | Sources of data points and references: see Thailand National Nutrition Survey 1960 and 1975: *Supornsilaphachai C. Evolution of salt reduction initiatives in Thailand: lessons for other countries in the South‐East Asia Region. Regional Health Forum 2013;17(1):61‐71 National Nutrition Survey 2003 and report of sodium consumption in Thai diet survey 2008: Thailand country questionnaire 2014: *Supornsilaphachai 2013 (see full citation above) Fourth Thai National Health Examination Survey 2008‐2009: Thailand country questionnaire 2014: *Supornsilaphachai 2013 (see full citation above): Aekplakorn W, Chariyalertsak S, Kessomboon P, Sangthong R, Inthawong R, Putwatana P, Taneepanichskul S, Thai National Health Examination Survey IV Study Group. Prevalence and management of diabetes and metabolic risk factors in Thai adults: The Thai National Health Examination Survey IV, 2009. Diabetes Care 2011;34(9):1980‐1985 *Indicates main publication used for in‐text citation purposes |
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Sampling | High risk | Simple random sampling reported for only 1 data point (2007) |
Confounding | High risk | Uncontrolled pre‐post designs always score 'high' |
Reliability/validity of outcome measure | Unclear risk | Methods of measuring sodium levels were not described |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Pre‐existing data were used to evaluate the initiative |
Representativeness of sample | Unclear risk | Not discussed |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | High risk | No estimates of variance (confidence intervals or standard deviations) were provided |
Other bias | Low risk | No other obvious sources of bias to report |