Table 2. Effects of intervention on control of hypertension (primary outcome) and prescription of antihypertensive medication (secondary outcome) in people with hypertension: complete case analysis.

Outcome	Number of participants		Change from baseline to follow-up*		P value	Adjusted odds ratio (95% CI)†	P value
	Intervention	UC‡	Intervention	UC
Overall
Control of hypertension	459	1,011	93 (20.3)	96 (9.5)	<0.001	1.6 (1.2–2.1)	0.001
Prescribed antihypertensive medication	459	1,012	57 (12.4)	100 (9.9)	0.14	1.2 (0.8–1.9)	0.34
Women
Control of hypertension	280	596	52 (18.6)	49 (8.2)	<0.001	1.6 (1.1–2.2)	0.01
Prescribed antihypertensive medication	280	597	38 (13.6)	45 (7.5)	0.004	1.5 (0.9–2.2)	0.09
Men
Control of hypertension	178	411	41 (23.0)	48 (11.7)	<0.001	1.6 (1.1–2.5)	0.02
Prescribed antihypertensive medication	178	411	19 (10.7)	54 (13.1)	0.40	0.9 (0.5–1.7)	0.85

There are 4 missing observations for sex in the UC group and 1 in the intervention group.

*Change in control of hypertension was obtained by subtracting the number of people with control of hypertension at baseline from the number with control at follow-up. The same approach was applied to prescription of antihypertensive medication. Positive number demonstrates improvement.

^†Odds ratios obtained using mixed effects logistic regression, clustered by village and study region. For control of hypertension, the dependent variable was control of hypertension at follow-up, with adjustment for control of hypertension at baseline (ICC: overall, 0.002; women, 0.003; men, 0.008). The same approach was applied to prescription of antihypertensive medication (ICC: overall, 0.04; women, 0.02; men, 0.09).

^‡A person who did not have blood pressure measured at follow-up had details of medications, and so there is an extra observation for the latter analysis.

ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient; UC, usual care.