Cited by 18Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesHealth Education and ValidationPublic Health and Social Inequalities

Disease perception and experiences among rural Bangladeshi hypertensive women: A qualitative approach

Open access
Jahan, Yasmin, Moriyama, Michiko, Rahman, Md Moshiur, Kazawa, Kana, Mizukawa, Mariko, Rahman, Atiqur, Bin Shahid, Abu Sadat Mohammad Sayeem, Das, Sumon Kumar +2 more·2020·Health Promotion Perspectives

Abstract

Background: Hypertension (HTN) is well established as a leading cause of common serious illnesses worldwide. We carried out this qualitative research to understand perception of and experiences related to HTN among rural Bangladeshi hypertensive women. Methods: A total of 74 female hypertensive participants who were diagnosed as HTN were purposively recruited in a rural community in Mirzapur, Bangladesh. A focus group discussion(FGD) was applied to share their perception and experiences. Transcripts were read in an iterative process, and a thematic analysis was performed. This paper is reported followed by COREQ checklist. Results: Three main themes were generated; (i) Perception of HTN based on experiences, (ii)Knowledge of management of HTN, and (iii) Barriers of management of HTN. Under the themes, seven subthemes were identified. The participants only knew about their high blood pressure(HBP) when they had symptoms, and they applied traditional remedies in the rural context to deal with those symptoms. Even though more than half of participants had relevant knowledge of how to manage HTN, but still there were social-cultural and economic barriers and lack of social infrastructure to access healthcare, existed to practice them. Conclusion: Based on our study reports, health education programs at the household and community level could be a potential starting point for any preventive and containment strategy in rural communities of Bangladesh.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.15171/hpp.2020.11

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 37 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [20]Guidelines for conducting a Focus group. American Journal For Researchers. Eliot & Associates; 2005. Available from: https://datainnovationproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/4_How_to_Conduct_a_Focus_Group-2-1.pdf. Accessed January 18, 2020.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jahan, Y., Moriyama, M., Rahman, M. M., Kazawa, K., Mizukawa, M., Rahman, A., Bin Shahid, A. S. M. S., Das, S. K., Faruque, A. S. G., & Chisti, M. J.
Affiliations
  • Hiroshima University (JP)
  • Linköping University (SE)
  • International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Dhaka, Bangladesh
  • Menzies School of Health Research (AU)
  • International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research (BD)
Corresponding author
Jahan, Yasmin
Venue
Health Promotion Perspectives
Published
2020-01-28
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
66-73
ISSN
2228-6497 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3006630147
Cited by
18
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2
FWCI
1.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Health Promotion Perspectives (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • DiVA (Linkoping University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Greater South Information System
Funders
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (18H03113)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
  • Social Sciences › Health › Public Health and Social Inequalities
Keywords
hypertension, hypertensive women, illness perception, lived experience, hypertension knowledge, traditional remedies, economic barriers, health care access, rural communities, health education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review