Skip to main content

The effect of high blood pressure-health literacy, self-management behavior, self-efficacy and social support on the health-related quality of life of Kazakh hypertension patients in a low-income rural area of China: a structural equation model

Abstract

Background

Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) of hypertensive patients is not only affected by the disease itself but also by some subjective factors. Low health literacy is prevalent among ethnic minorities. Considering the Kazakh-Chinese people have the highest prevalence of hypertension in Xinjiang, and the High Blood Pressure-Health Literacy (HBP-HL) has not been included in the study of HRQoL. The synergistic effects and the potential mechanism HBP-HL, self-management behavior, therapeutic adherence, self-efficacy, social support on HRQoL remain unclear. This study aimed to introduce the HBP-HL, and develop a structural equation model (SEM) to identify the factors influencing of the HRQoL among Kazakh hypertensive patients.

Methods

The data was obtained by questionnaire survey and physical examination in 2015. Patients with hypertension were recruited through random cluster sampling in Kazakh settlements in Xinjiang. Firstly, the blood pressure was measured. Then the one-for-one household interviews were conducted by Kazakh investigators. The questionnaires regarding HBP-HL, HRQoL, self-management behavior, therapeutic adherence, self-efficacy, and social support were used to collect data. Finally, SEM was constructed, and p ≤ 0.05 was taken as significant.

Results

The data was analysed by SPSS18.0 and AMOS18.0 software. 516 Kazakh hypertension patients were recruited, and 94.4% of them had a relatively low HBP-HL score. The mean standardized scores of HRQoL, self-management, therapeutic adherence were poor; they were 63.5, 66.2, and 64.4, respectively. But 96.1% and 98.3% of the participants had high levels of self-efficacy and social support. The SEM of the HRQoL had a good overall fit (χ2/df = 2.078, AGFI = 0.944, GFI = 0.968, CFI = 0.947, IFI = 0.949, RMSEA = 0.046). The model indicated that the HBP-HL has the highest correlation with HRQoL, following with self-management behavior, social support, and self-efficacy.

Conclusions

Low HBP-HL is a major influenced factor of HRQoL among Kazakh hypertensive patients. Future programs should consider HBP-HL as the breakthrough point when designing targeting intervention strategies.

Peer Review reports

Background

Hypertension is the most significant risk factor for cardiovascular disability and death that affect a high proportion of people worldwide. Especially in low- and middle- income countries, for example China, Brazil, India and Mexico, the economic burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and hypertension contributed together 50% of the total number of economic estimates identified [1]. The Chinese Cardiovascular Disease Report 2018 indicates that about 245 million patients with hypertension in China, which has become a major public health problem. In Xinjiang, China, Kazakh mainly live in farm and pastoral areas due to unique lifestyle characterized by grazing and farming. Kazakh-Chinese people have the highest prevalence of hypertension (36.9%), followed by Han (33.7%) and Uygur (26.1%) [2]. The awareness and treatment of hypertension were obviously improved, but the control rate(12.6%) remain was extremely low in Kazakh-Chinese people [3]. Hypertension has become one of the major public health concerns among Kazakh-Chinese people.

Health-related Quality of Life (HRQoL) refers to how well a person functions in their life and his or her perceived wellbeing in physical, mental, and social domains of health [4]. HRQoL has become an important outcome measure indicator in health care fields, and is commonly used as an effective assessment of any disease management plan and health status [5, 6]. Comparing with previous objective indicators such as mortality, cure rate, and morbidity, the measurement of HRQoL can comprehensively and accurately assess the health status and prevention effects of chronic diseases such as hypertension [7, 8]. It not only reflects physical health but also psychological, social, and emotional health. Furthermore, it describes the appearance of a disease and also indicates the consequences of a disease or treatment [9, 10]. Many studies have shown that the HRQoL of patients with hypertension is lower than that of patients with normal blood pressure, regardless of physical health or mental health [5, 11,12,13,14].

HRQoL of hypertensive patients is not only affected by the disease itself but also by some subjective factors such as health literacy, self-management and psychological factors.

High Blood Pressure-Health Literacy (HBP-HL) refers to the ability of hypertensive patients to acquire, understand, and deal with hypertension-related knowledge as well as the medical services needed to control diseases [15]. Previous studies have indicated HBP-HL as a powerful indicator for predicting the health status of people, which is highly correlated with morbidity, mortality, life expectancy, and HRQoL of people with hypertension [16], especially in ethnic minorities [17, 18]. Low health literacy usually leads to a series of negative health outcomes [19]. The existing literature has also demonstrated that HBP-HL is an independent predictor of blood pressure control [20, 21], and emphasized that health care providers should evaluate HBP-HL level when they meet the patients with hypertension for the first time in order to provide tailored interventions [22, 23]. However, HBP-HL has not been introduced into the study of the HRQoL of patients with hypertension, especially among Kazakh hypertension patients in rural China.

Self-management is a dynamic process in which individuals actively apply cognitive and behavioral strategies to manage their own thoughts, emotions and behaviors [24]. Effective self-management can not only encourage patients to actively monitor their condition, and regulate their behavior and emotions, but also can improve their HRQoL [25,26,27].

Therapeutic adherence refers to patients’ compliance with medical conventions and active adoption of health-promoting behaviors [28]. Studies have demonstrated that the therapeutic adherence is typically higher among patients with acute illness, compared to those with chronic ones [29, 30]. Poor therapeutic adherence is strongly related to the uncontrolled blood pressure among hypertensive patients [31]. Mollaoglu found that a significant positive correlation between therapeutic adherence, self-efficacy and HRQoL [32]. Hanus suggested that therapeutic adherence can’t predict HRQoL, although patients with high adherence scores had better HRQoL [33].

Self-efficacy is an important determinant of intention and behavior. On the one hand, self-efficacy can predict HRQoL, and low self-efficacy usually leads to low HRQoL [34]. On the other hand, as a mediating variable, self-efficacy can promote the improvement of self-management level, and ultimately better the HRQoL in people suffering from chronic disease [35]. Evidence suggests that patients with high self-efficacy had better blood pressure control [36].

An increasing number of studies demonstrate that social support is significantly related to self-efficacy, the interaction between the two factor can predict the HRQoL, and is one of the important mediating factors in determining the level of HL and self-management behavior [37, 38]. For hypertension, social support not only can improve the therapeutic adherence, help to control blood pressure [39], but also contribute to optimize the HRQoL in hypertensive patients [40].

Based on the above mentioned existing literatures, HBP-HL, self-management behavior, therapeutic adherence, self-efficacy, social support and HRQoL are related and have complex relationships. However, their synergistic effects on HRQoL and the potential mechanism remain unclear. Only one article using the structural equation model (SEM) explored the relation between health literacy and HRQoL in hypertension patients and found that enhancing the level of health literacy and self-management might improve the HRQoL of patients with hypertension, but the health literacy is universal and lack of pertinence [41]. Therefore, this study aims to introduce the conception of HBP-HL, and to expound the status quo of HRQoL, HBP-HL, self-management behavior, therapeutic adherence, self-efficacy, and social support of Kazakh hypertension patients in rural of Xinjiang. Eventually develop a SEM to explore the factors influencing the HRQoL of Kazakh hypertensive patients, and clear the direct and indirect effect of factors affecting HRQoL. Figure 1 shows the initial hypothesis model (M1) in this study.

Fig. 1
figure1

Initial Hypothesis Model of HRQoL among Kazakh hypertension patients in China. (M1)

Methods

Research participants

The Kazakh hypertension patients in the rural area of Xinjiang were recruited through random cluster sampling in 2015. First, based on the census data of Xinjiang, a list of the main Kazakh residence areas in Xinjiang was generated; one research site (from Urumqi counties) was randomly selected from this list. Second, five towns/town ships were randomly selected from the selected Urumqi counties. In the selected towns, only Kazakh residents who were diagnosed with hypertension at the age of 18 years or older were eligible for this study. Finally, hypertensive patients diagnosed in Kazakh settlements in Baiyanggou, Toli Ranch, Gangou Township, Xiaoquzi, and Sardanban Townships in Urumqi County, Xinjiang who met the following inclusion criteria were recruited: (1)18 years old or older; (2) Meeting the criteria for the diagnosis of essential hypertension, systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥140 mmHg, and / or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥90 mmHg [42]; (3) Blood pressure (BP) levels that have not reached the above-mentioned diagnostic criteria but have a history of hypertension, and are currently taking antihypertensive drugs; (4) Normal cognitive ability, and the capability to independently (or through the investigator) read and fill in the required research questionnaire; and (5) Agreement by Kazakh patients to participate to this study and sign the inform consent. However, if the patients met any of the following criteria, they were excluded: (1) Mental disorder and/or mental retardation; (2) Serious social dysfunction (patients with an inability to communicate); (3) Participation in other research projects in the past 1 month; (4) Profession in medical field and/or relation to medical professionals; (5) Cancer patients who received radiotherapy or chemotherapy in the past 6 months; (6) Patients with various types of secondary hypertension.

Data collection

A general rule of thumb is that models with 5 or more items were analysed, at least 500 observations sample were needed [43]. Then adding 10% non-response rate, sample size became 550.

The one-for-one household interviews were conducted by Kazakh investigators. The questionnaires were further checked for missing data. If any missing information was identified, further information was collected via phone call to the numbers provided by the participants or one more visit to the participants’ house. However, a group of participants have missing data; they were unreachable later on.

The survey collected general information (including demographic characteristics, such as gender, age, education level, marital status, occupation, and annual family income) from the participants. HBP-HL, HRQoL, self-management behavior, therapeutic adherence, self-efficacy, and social support were also measured. All these scales were assembled into one questionnaire.

Instruments

Chinese-High Blood Pressure-Health Literacy Scale (C-HBP-HLS) [44]

consists of 15 items in 5 dimensions (Print Health Literacy, Medication Label, Understanding Ability, Newest Vital Sign Test, and Avoiding Food Allergy), which was developed and validated by Kim MT, et al. in 2012 [45]. According to the Test of Functional Health Literacy in adults (TOFHLA) scoring system [46], the final scale ranged from 0 to 60 points, and a higher score reflects higher the HBP-HL level. In addition, according to the TOFHLA classification criteria [47], the patients were further categorized into three HBP-HL levels: lack (< 32 points), medium (32 to 40 points), and sufficient (≥ 40 points). The scale-level content validity index was 0.85. Cronbach’s α of the overall scale was 0.78, and the test-retest reliability was 0.96.

HRQOL Instruments for Chronic Disease-Hypertension (QLICD-HY) [48]

The QLICD-HY includes 30 items, it was divided 4 dimensions (Physical Function, Psychological Function, Social Function and Specific Module), and was used to evaluate HRQoL for patients with hypertension, which was developed and validated by Wan C, et al. in 2012 [48]. The scores for each patient was calculated with the specific formula: standardized score = (Raw Score-minimum) × 100/(Max-Min). The higher the total scores reflect better HRQoL. The test–retest reliability coefficient for the overall score was 0.89, the Cronbach’s α for these four domains ranged from 0.66 to 0.88.

Hypertension Patients Self-Management Behavior Rating Scale (HPSMBRS) [49]

The scale includes 33 items, which was developed and validated by F Zhao, Q, et al. in 2012 [49]. The higher the total scores reflect better Self-management levels. Cronbach’s α of the overall scale was 0.914.

Therapeutic Adherence Scale for Hypertensive Patients (TASHP) [50]

consists of 25 items, which was developed and validated by Tang H, et al. in 2011, and was used to assess the compliance of hypertension patients in recent months. A higher scores mean better therapeutic adherence. Cronbach’s α of the overall scale was 0.86, and the test-retest reliability was 0.96.

Self-efficacy of chronic diseases scale

Self-efficacy for managing chronic disease was assessed by the Stanford 6-item Scale, which was developed and validated by Lorig KR, et al. in 2001 [51]. The scale is rated on a 10-point scale ranging from “not at all confident” to “totally confident”. It has been widely used in many countries and has good reliability and validity [52]. It was composed of 6 items in 2 dimensions (Symptom management and disease generic management), and a total scale is the sum of the average scores of each item. The higher the total scores reflect better self-efficacy. According to the total scores, a score less than 4.0 indicated low self-efficacy, of 4 to 7.9 indicated moderate self-efficacy, and more than 8.0 indicated high self-efficacy.

Social Support Rating Scale (SSRS) [53]

10 items with 3 dimensions and the total scores are the sum of each item, which was developed and validated by Xiao SY, et al. in 1994 [53]. It has been used widely in China and has a good reliability and validity. A higher scores reflect better social support. The social support was categorized into four groups based on the total scores, which were: low (< 20 points), medium (20 to 30 points), high (30 to 40 points), very high (≥ 40 points). The retest reliability is 0.92; the consistency of each item is 0.89–0.94 [54].

All original scale scores were standardized to make the comparable standardized scores = (factor per capita value/the full number of each item) × 100, with the exception of QLICD-HY.

Blood pressure measure

The AU-621 (A & D Medical Life source, Japan) electronic sphygmomanometer [Ande Electronics (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.] was used to measure the blood pressure of the right upper limb of the patient. The AU-621 was calibrated every 6 months. Before the measurement, the participants were asked to rest for at least 5 min. The sphygmomanometer’s cuff was placed on the right upper limb elbow of the patient two consecutive times, at least 30 s apart, and averaged.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analysis was performed using SPSS18.0 and AMOS18.0 software. The continuous variables (SBP, DBP, and the scores of HBP-HL, HRQoL, self-management behavior, therapeutic adherence, self-efficacy, and social support) were reported as mean ± standard deviation. The categorical variables (Age, gender, marriage, occupation, education and the annual family income level) were reported in percentage or composition ratio. The path analysis model was used to create the structural equation model (SEM) for predicting the HRQoL of Kazakh hypertension patients with hypertension (a = 0.05 for entry into the model, and a = 0.10 for excluding from the model). P ≤ 0.05 indicates statistical significance. The following indexes were used to evaluate the goodness-of-fit of hypothesized models:χ2 /df < 3, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA < 0.08), Goodness-of-fit Index (GFI > 0.90), Adjusted Goodness-of-fit Index (AGFI> 0.90), Incremental fit Index (IFI > 0.90), Comparative fit Index (CFI > 0.90) [55].

Results

The study was conducted in 2015. Overall, 550 patients who met the eligibility criteria, in the selected townships from the rural area of Xinjiang. Among them, 24 invalid questionnaires (with incomplete data) were excluded; 516 questionnaires were valid, with a return rate of 93.82%.

Demographic characteristics and BP level of the participants

Among the 516 included Kazakh hypertension patients in the rural area, 239 were male (46.3%), and 277 were female (53.7%). The mean age of the participants was 58.14 ± 12.05 years old. The majority of the participants were farmers and herdsmen (87.60%). In addition, around 70% participants only attended junior high school or below, and about two-thirds of the participants have an annual family income of less than RMB 10,000 yuan (75.6%).The average SBP was 156.26 ± 24.40 mmHg, and the average DBP was 87.55 ± 14.73 mmHg for the participants (see Table 1).

Table 1 Demographic characteristics of Kazakh hypertension patients

HRQOL, HBP-HL, self-management behavior, therapeutic adherence, self-efficacy, and social support

The standardized HRQoL score of Kazakh hypertension patients in rural areas was 63.5 points. The standardization scores of each dimension of QLICD-HY from high to low were: the psychological function (68.7 points), the social function (66.1 points), the hypertension specific module (61.5 points), and the physical function (57.2 points). The standardized HBP-HL score was 24.2 points. Overall, 487 patients (94.4%) lacked HBP-HL, 7 patients (1.4%) had a medium level of HBP-HL, and only 22 patients (4.2%) were considered to be sufficient in HBP-HL. The standardized scores of self-management behavior and therapeutic adherence were 66.2 points and 64.4 points, respectively. The standardized score of self-efficacy was 64.0 points, including 20 cases (3.9%) with low self-efficacy, 422 cases (81.8%) with medium self-efficacy, and 74 cases with high self-efficacy (14.3%). The standardized social support score was 76.0 points, including 1 case (0.2%) with low social support, 8 cases (1.6%) with medium social support, 172 cases (33.3%) with high social support, and 335 cases (64.9%) with very high social support (see Table 2).

Table 2 Current situation of HRQoL, HBP-HL, Self-management behavior, Therapeutic Adherence, Self-efficacy and Social support

Construction and testing of structural equation model of HRQoL

Correlation analysis (see Table 3) showed that HRQoL had a significantly positive correlation with HBP-HL, self-management behavior, therapeutic adherence, social support, and self-efficacy (P < 0.001). Based on the results mentioned above, and the literature, the initial hypothesis model (M1) of HRQoL, HBP-HL, self-management behavior, therapeutic adherence, self-efficacy, and social support of Kazakh hypertension patients in rural areas were constructed (see Fig. 1).

Table 3 Correlations among HBP-HL, Self-management behavior, Therapeutic Adherence, Self-efficacy, social support and HRQoL

Next, the maximum likelihood method was used for parameter estimation. According to the revised index, standardized regression coefficient (path coefficient) and literature data, the paths that did not reach a significant level and were unreasonable, were deleted. Thus, the paths between social support and self-management behavior, social support and self-efficacy, HBP-HL and self-management behavior, self-management behavior and therapeutic adherence, HBP-HL and therapeutic adherence, and therapeutic adherence and HRQoL, were deleted. After optimization, the HRQoL impact factor model (M2) had a better fitting index than the hypothesis model (M1). The optimized model is shown in Fig. 2; it composed of 5 modules and 16 dimensions.

Fig. 2
figure2

Structural Equation Model of HRQoL among Kazakh hypertension patients. (M2)

We further evaluated the fitting effect of the path analysis model for HRQoL. When a sample size of 500 was amassed, the model reached the standard, and the fitting indicators met the requirements; this means the model fits well (see Table 4).

Table 4 Goodness-of-fit indices of the structural equation model for HRQoL among Kazakh hypertension patients

The testing of the modified model showed that all the paths were statistically significant (P < 0.05, C.R. > 1.96) and meaningful (Table 5, Path analysis results of HRQoL). Among the paths, HBP-HL had the biggest direct effect on HRQoL (0.350), followed by self-management behavior (0.257), social support (0.190), and self-efficacy (0.183). The model also indicated that self-efficacy could impact HRQoL through self-management behavior.

Table 5 Path analysis results of HRQoL among Kazakh hypertension

Discussion

The results of this study indicate that HRQoL, HBP-HL, and self-management behavior of Kazakh hypertension patients in rural areas are suboptimal, but their self-efficacy and social support status are high. The standardized HRQoL score was 63.30 points, which was at a low level. This result is approximately the same as those in Islamabad, Pakistan (64.56 points) [56]. Among all the dimensions, the physical function was the worst. This result is similar to a study conducted among hypertension patients in Anuradhapura District in North Central Province, Sri Lanka [5]. Tailored interventions should be implemented to improve the HRQoL of Kazakh hypertension patients, especially their physical functions.

Our results showed that the majority of the patients, up to 94% of them, lack HBP-HL. They are unable to read or understand the instructions of the prescription drugs, or can’t communicate effectively with doctors. Research discussed that patients with high HBP-HL have better hypertension control and better HRQoL. The low health literacy causes a 10-year increased risk of cardiovascular disease [57]. Furthermore, Halladay J R et al. demonstrated that health literacy intervention may equally lower SBP in patients with low and higher health literacy [58]. All of these findings indicate the importance of assessing HBP-HL among hypertension patients.

The standardized score of self-management behavior among the Kazakh hypertension patients was at a medium-low level (66.23 points), and it was much lower than the score among hypertension patients in Guangdong, China (86.01points) [59]. Potential reasons for the lower self-management behavior among Kazakh hypertension patients include these factors that all patients in this study living in the remote rural area, and having poor economic situations and education. In addition, since Kazakh is the patients’ main communication language [60], and their Chinese reading and communication ability are relatively low, it creates difficulties in access knowledge and influences their ability to manage the diseases by themselves. Moreover, the patients live in a more dispersed area and often moved to different areas during different seasons, which makes it difficult to assemble the patients and their families, to carry out health educational activities. Mackey L M et al. discussed that low Health Literacy affects the development of self-management skills [61].

Extensive research indicates that health literacy plays an important role in promoting the HRQoL [16, 62, 63]. One study conducted in Tehran, Iran, concluded that health literacy and HRQoL had a significantly positive correlation and suggested that nursing officials and policymakers take measures to promote patients’ HRQoL by improving patients’ health literacy [64]. Previous studies using the SEM in hypertension patients mainly focus on the factors influencing of self-management behavior [59]. Only one article using the SEM explored the relation between health literacy and HRQoL in hypertension patients and found that enhancing the level of health literacy and self-management might improve the HRQoL of patients with hypertension, but the health literacy is universal and lack of pertinence [41].

Our study that introduced hypertension-specific health literacy (HBP-HL) instrument, further explored the direct and indirect effect of factors affecting HRQoL, which might lead to better interventions aimed at ameliorating HRQoL of Kazakh hypertension patients. The indexes of the model reached the adaptation criteria, and the fitting was good. The effects of HBP-HL, social support, self-efficacy, and self-management behavior on HRQoL are positive and statistically significant. HBP-HL has the biggest direct effect on HRQoL. The results of this study are consistent with worldwide results. For example, Tartavoulle study showed that social support had a positive effect on the path of HRQoL [65]. The study by Lee et al. demonstrated that there was a positive effect of self-efficacy on HRQoL [66]. Also, a study among patients with type 2 diabetes showed that self-management, disease-related knowledge, and attitude were the decisive factors that affected the HRQoL [67]. One study conducted by Osborn et al. also found that the health literacy level and health knowledge path of hypertension patients were statistically significant and that health knowledge further affected patients’ self-efficacy and health status [68]. Recent studies strongly suggested that the higher the level of health literacy, the better the HRQoL [69]. These studies do not only support these correlations but further indicate the feasibility of our model. Thus, it seems essential to improve the level of HBP-HL among Kazakh hypertension patients.

There is a positive correlation between therapeutic adherence and HRQoL, however, the path of therapeutic adherence and HRQoL is not statistically significant in SEM. This result is not accordance with the study by Mollaoğlu M, et al. [32], but it is consistent with Hanus J S, et al. [33]. Explanation for the result might be the highly collinear relationship between therapeutic adherence and medication management dimension of self-management behavior. The effect of self-management behavior on HRQoL far outweigh therapeutic adherence.

Limitations

Some possible limitations of this study should be noted. First, a cross-sectional design limits the causal conclusions that we can draw, and the causal relationship should be confirmed in further prospective studies. Second, Kazakh hypertensive patients were recruited from the same region, which might have limited the generalizability of the study results. Thus, further efforts should be made using multiple strategies to make the sample more comprehensive in future.

Conclusions

HRQoL, HBP-HL, and self-management behavior of Kazakh hypertension patients in rural areas are poor. The structural equation model of HRQoL works well. HBP-HL has the largest impact on the HRQoL in the model. The results highlight that researchers should give a priority to evaluate patient’s HBP-HL before intervention. Next, tailored interventions are implemented for patients, and ultimately it will contribute to control blood pressure and improve patients’ HRQoL.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

HRQoL:

Health-Related Quality of Life

HBP-HL:

High Blood Pressure-Health Literacy

C-HBP-HLS:

Chinese-High Blood Pressure-Health Literacy Scale

QLICD-HY:

HRQoL Instruments for Chronic Disease-Hypertension

HPSMBRS:

Hypertension Patients Self-Management Behavior Rating Scale

TASHP:

Therapeutic Adherence Scale for Hypertensive Patients

SSRS:

Social Support Rating Scale

RMSEA:

Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

GFI:

Goodness-of-fit Index

AGFI:

Adjusted Goodness-of-fit Index

IFI:

Incremental fit Index

CFI:

Comparative fit Index

References

  1. 1.

    Gheorghe A, Griffiths U, Murphy A, Legido-Quigley H, Lamptey P, Perel P. The economic burden of cardiovascular disease and hypertension in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):975. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5806-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Wang Y, Zhang J, Ding Y, Zhang M, Liu J, Ma J, et al. Prevalence of hypertension among adults in remote rural areas of Xinjiang, China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13(6):524. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13060524.

    CAS  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Wang L, Li N, Heizhati M, Yao X, Duiyimuhan G, Zhou K, et al. Prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control and related factors of hypertension in multiethnic agriculture, stock-raising, and urban Xinjiang, Northwest China: a cross-sectional screening for 47000 adults. Int J Hypertens. 2019;2019:3576853–8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/3576853.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Hays R, Reeve B. Measurement and modeling of health-related quality of life. Epidem Demog Public Health. 2010:195–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012373960-5.00336-1.

  5. 5.

    Riley E, Chang J, Park C, Kim S, Song I. Hypertension and health-related quality of life (HRQoL): evidence from the US Hispanic population. Clin Drug Investig. 2019;39(9):899–908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40261-019-00814-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Jayasinghe UW, Harris MF, Parker SM, et al. The impact of health literacy and life style risk factors on health-related quality of life of Australian patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14(1):68. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0471-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Ye R, Liu K, Zhang Z, Gong S, Chen X. Health-related quality of life of hypertension in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2018;19(8):430–8. https://doi.org/10.2459/JCM.0000000000000678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Tzelepis F, Sanson-Fisher RW, Zucca AC, Fradgley EA. Measuring the quality of patient-centered care: why patient-reported measures are critical to reliable assessment. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015;24(9):831–5. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S81975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Alonso J, Ferrer M, Gandek B, Ware JE Jr, Aaronson NK, Mosconi P, et al. Health-related quality of life associated with chronic conditions in eight countries: results from the international quality of life assessment (IQOLA) project. Qual Life Res. 2004;13(2):283–98. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:qure.0000018472.46236.05.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Wong ELY, Xu RH, Cheung AWL. Measuring the impact of chronic conditions and associated multimorbidity on health-related quality of life in the general population in Hong Kong SAR, China: a cross sectional study. PLoS One. 2019;14(11):e0224970. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224970.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Carvalho MV, Siqueira LB, Sousa AL, Jardim PC. The influence of hypertension on quality of life. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2013;100(2):164–74. https://doi.org/10.5935/abc.20130030.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Corrêa RA, Pereira MC, Bizzi MF, de Oliveira RWR, Rezende CF, de Oliveira BCMT, et al. Adaptation and validation of the quality of life assessment of the Cambridge pulmonary hypertension outcome review (CAMPHOR) for Brazil. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2020;4(1):43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-020-00209-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Yao Q, Liu C, Zhang Y, Xu L. Health-related quality of life of people with self-reported hypertension: a National Cross-Sectional Survey in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(10):1721. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16101721.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Gu S, Hu H, Dong H. Systematic review of health-related quality of life in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(8):751–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0395-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Parker R, Ratzan SC. Health literacy: a second decade of distinction for Americans. J Health Commun. 2010;15(Suppl 2):20–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2010.501094.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Park NH, Song MS, Shin SY, Jeong JH, Lee HY. The effects of medication adherence and health literacy on health-related quality of life in older people with hypertension. Int J Older People Nursing. 2018;13(3):e12196. https://doi.org/10.1111/opn.12196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Liu D, Schuchard H, Burston B, Yamashita T, Albert S. Interventions to reduce healthcare disparities in Cancer screening among minority adults: a systematic review. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2020;10(1):107–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-020-00763-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Fransen M, Harris VC, Essink-Bot ML. Beperkte gezondheidsvaardigheden bij patiënten van allochtone herkomst: alleen een tolk inzetten is meestal niet genoeg. [Low health literacy in ethnic minority patients: understandable language is the beginning of good healthcare]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2013;157(14):A5581.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Findley A. Low health literacy and older adults: meanings, problems, and recommendations for social work. Soc Work Health Care. 2015;54(1):65–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/00981389.2014.966882.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    McNaughton CD, Jacobson TA, Kripalani S. Low literacy is associated with uncontrolled blood pressure in primary care patients with hypertension and heart disease. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;96(2):165–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2014.05.007.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Pandit AU, Tang JW, Bailey SC, Davis TC, Bocchini MV, Persell SD, et al. Education, literacy, and health: mediating effects on hypertension knowledge and control. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;75(3):381–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2009.04.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Sampson UK, Mensah GA. Initial clinical encounter with the patient with established hypertension. Cardiol Clin. 2010;28(4):587–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccl.2010.08.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Tavakoly Sany SB, Behzhad F, Ferns G, Peyman N. Communication skills training for physicians improves health literacy and medical outcomes among patients with hypertension: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-4901-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Brady TJ, Sacks JJ, Terrillion AJ, Colligan EM. Operationalizing surveillance of chronic disease self-Ma nagement and self-management support. Prev Chronic Dis. 2018;15:E39. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd15.170475.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Qiu C, Shao D, Yao Y, Zhao Y, Zang X. Self-management and psychological resilience moderate the relationships between symptoms and health-related quality of life among patients with hypertension in China. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(9):2585–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02191-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Graarup J, Ferrari P, Howard LS. Patient engagement and self-management in pulmonary arterial hypertension. Eur Respir Rev. 2016;25(142):399–407. https://doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0078-2016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Salzwedel A, Koran I, Langheim E, Schlitt A, Nothroff J, Bongarth C, et al. Patient-reported outcomes predict return to work and health-related quality of life six months after cardiac rehabilitation: results from a German multi-Centre registry (OutCaRe). PLoS One. 2020;15(5):e0232752. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232752.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Brown MT, Bussell J, Dutta S, Davis K, Strong S, Mathew S. Medication adherence: truth and consequences. Am J Med Sci. 2016;351(4):387–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjms.2016.01.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Haynes RB, McDonald HP, Garg AX. Helping patients follow prescribed treatment: clinical applications. JAMA. 2002;288(22):2880–3. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.22.2880.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Thakkar J, Kurup R, Laba TL, Santo K, Thiagalingam A, Rodgers A, et al. Mobile telephone text messaging for medication adherence in chronic disease: a meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(3):340–9. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.7667.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, Casey DE Jr, Collins KJ, Dennison Himmelfarb C, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on clinical practice guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71(19):e127–248. https://doi.org/10.1161/HYP.0000000000000065.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Mollaoğlu M, Solmaz G, Mollaoğlu M. ADHERENCE TO THERAPY AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN HYPERTENSIVE PATIENTS. Acta Clin Croat. 2015;54(4):438–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Hanus JS, Simoes PW, Amboni G, et al. Association between quality of life and medication adherence in hypertensive individuals. Acta Paulista de Enfermagem. 2015;28(4):381–7. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0194201500064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Chirico A, Lucidi F, Merluzzi T, et al. A meta-analytic review of the relationship of cancer coping self-efficacy with distress and quality of life. Oncotarget. 2017;8(22):36800–11. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.15758.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Selzler AM, Habash R, Robson L, Lenton E, Goldstein R, Brooks D. Self-efficacy and health-related quality of life in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis. Patient Educ Couns. 2020;103(4):682–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2019.12.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Ghadiri R, Alimohammadi M, Majdabadi HA. Determination of the psychometric properties of the Patients’ self-efficacy scale in blood pressure patients. Interv Med Appl Sci. 2018;10(2):87–94. https://doi.org/10.1556/1646.10.2018.05.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Rashid AA, Zuhra H, Tan CE. Social support, self-efficacy and their correlation among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a primary care perspective. Med J Malaysia. 2018;73(4):197–201.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Fatima S, Jibeen T. Interplay of self-efficacy and social support in predicting quality of life in cardiovascular patients in Pakistan. Community Ment Health J. 2019;55(5):855–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-018-0361-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Magrin ME, D'Addario M, Greco A, et al. Social support and adherence to treatment in hypertensive patients: a meta-analysis. Ann Behav Med. 2015;49(3):307–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-014-9663-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Nyaaba GN, Stronks K, Meeks K, Beune E, Owusu-Dabo E, Addo J, et al. Is social support associated with hypertension control among Ghanaian migrants in Europe and non-migrants in Ghana? Intern Emerg Med. 2019;14(6):957–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-019-02075-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Wang C, Lang J, Xuan L, Li X, Zhang L. The effect of health literacy and self-management efficacy on the health-related quality of life of hypertensive patients in a western rural area of China: a cross-sectional study. Int J Equity Health. 2017;16(1):58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-017-0551-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Writing Group of 2010 Chinese guidelines for the Management of Hypertension. 2010 Chinese guidelines for the management of hypertension. Chin J Cardiol. 2011;39(7):579–615.

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Nussbeck FW, Eid M, Lischetzke T. Analysing multitrait-multimethod data with structural equation models for ordinal variables applying the WLSMV estimator: what sample size is needed for valid results? Br J Math Stat Psychol. 2006;59(Pt 1):195–213. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711005X67490.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Zhang Q, Huang F, Liu Z, Zhang N, Mahapatra T, Tang W, et al. Cross-cultural validation of the high blood pressure health literacy scale in a Chinese community. PLoS One. 2016;11(4):e0152182. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152182.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Kim MT, Song HJ, Han HR, Song Y, Nam S, Nguyen TH, et al. Development and validation of the high blood pressure-focused health literacy scale. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;87(2):165–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2011.09.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Parker RM, Baker DW, Williams MV, Nurss JR. The test of functional health literacy in adults: a new instrument for measuring patients’ literacy skills. J Gen Intern Med. 1995;10(10):537–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02640361.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Baker DW, Williams MV, Parker RM, Gazmararian JA, Nurss J. Development of a brief test to measure functional health literacy. Patient Educ Couns. 1999;38(1):33–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0738-3991(98)00116-5.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Wan C, Jiang R, Tu XM, Tang W, Pan J, Yang R, et al. The hypertension scale of the system of quality of life instruments for chronic diseases, QLICD-HY: a development and validation study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2012;49(4):465–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.10.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Zhao Q, Liu X. Reliability and validity of the hypertension patients self-management behavior rating scale. Chin Nurs Manag. 2012;12(11):26–31 -in Chinese.

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Tang H, Zhu J, He H, et al. Development and evaluation of a new therapeutic adherence scale for hypertensive patients. J Third Military Med Univ.2011; 33(13), 1400–1402. in Chinese doi:https://doi.org/10.16016/j.1000-5404.2011.13.009. -in Chinese

  51. 51.

    Lorig KR, Sobel DS, Ritter PL, Laurent D, Hobbs M. Effect of a self-management program on patients with chronic disease. Eff Clin Pract. 2001;4(6):256–62.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Freund T, Gensichen J, Goetz K, Szecsenyi J, Mahler C. Evaluating self-efficacy for managing chronic disease: psychometric properties of the six-item self-efficacy scale in Germany. J Eval Clin Pract. 2013;19(1):39–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01764.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Xiao SY. The theoretical basis and research applications of “Social Support Rating Scale”. J Clin Psychiatry. 1994;4(2):98–100. in Chinese.

  54. 54.

    Dai X. Commonly used psychological assessment scale manual. Beijing: People’s Military Medical Press; 2010. p. 92-94. in Chinese.

  55. 55.

    Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen MR. Equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electron J Bus Res Methods. 2008;6(1):53–60.

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Amer M, Ur-Rahman N, Nazir SU, Jabeen M, Ehsan-Ul-Haq M. Sessment of blood pressure and health-related quality of life among hypertensive patients: an observational study. Altern Ther Health Med. 2019;25(3):26–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Shi D, Li J, Wang Y, Wang S, Liu K, Shi R, et al. Association between health literacy and hypertension management in a Chinese community: a retrospective cohort study. Intern Emerg Med. 2017;12(6):765–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-017-1651-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Halladay JR, Donahue KE, Cené CW, Li Q, Cummings DM, Hinderliter AL, et al. The association of health literacy and blood pressure reduction in a cohort of patients with hypertension: the heart healthy Lenoir trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100(3):542–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.10.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Ding W, Li T, Su Q, Yuan M, Lin A. Integrating factors associated with hypertensive patients’ self-management using structural equation modeling: a cross-sectional study in Guangdong. China Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018;12:2169–78. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S180314.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Ma Y, Wu J. Transition in economic cultural type and reform on education for Kazakh people. J Xinjiang Norm Univ (Edition of Philosophy and Social Sciences). 2012;33(3):98–101. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1005-9245.2012.03.016 in Chinese.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Mackey LM, Doody C, Werner EL, Fullen B. Self-management skills in chronic disease management: what role does health literacy have? Med Decis Mak. 2016;36(6):741–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X16638330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Couture ÉM, Chouinard MC, Fortin M, Hudon C. The relationship between health literacy and quality of life among frequent users of health care services: a cross-sectional study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):137. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017-0716-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Jovanić M, Zdravković M, Stanisavljević D, Jović VA. Exploring the importance of health literacy for the quality of life in patients with heart failure. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(8):1761. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15081761.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Naimi AJ, Naderiravesh N, Bayat ZS, Shakeri N, Matbouei M. Correlation between health literacy and health-related quality of life in patients with hypertension, in Tehran, Iran, 2015–2016. Electron Physician. 2017;9(11):5712–20. https://doi.org/10.19082/5712.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Tartavoulle TM. A predictive model of the effects of depression, anxiety, stress, 6-minute-walk distance, and social support on health-related quality of life in an adult pulmonary hypertension population. Clin Nurse Spec. 2015;29(1):22–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/NUR.0000000000000099.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Lee EH, Lee YW, Moon SH. A structural equation model linking health literacy to self-efficacy, self-care activities, and health-related quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes. Asian Nurs Res (Korean Soc Nurs Sci). 2016;10(1):82–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2016.01.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Kueh YC, Morris T, Borkoles E, Shee H. Modelling of diabetes knowledge, attitudes, self-management, and quality of life: a cross-sectional study with an Australian sample. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13(1):129. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-015-0303-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Osborn CY, Paasche-Orlow MK, Bailey SC, Wolf MS. The mechanisms linking health literacy to behavior and health status. Am J Health Behav. 2011;35(1):118–28. https://doi.org/10.5993/ajhb.35.1.11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Santos RD. Better health literacy can make the difference when control of risk factors for cardiovascular disease and quality of life are concerned. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2017;24(17):1878–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2047487317735721.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We sincerely thank Dr. Hongjun Wang, Dr. Huaifen Zhan, Dr. Yelixiati from the Health Bureau of Urumqi county for providing the investigation support. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (No. LGF19G030001).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Study Design: Qinghua Zhang, Jingping Zhang. Data Collection and Analysis: Qinghua Zhang, Lei Zhang. Manuscript Writing: Qinghua Zhang, Feifei Huang, Shasha Li. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Qinghua Zhang or Jingping Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University (approval number: 20130216–134). Written informed consent was obtained from each participant.

All methods were carried out in accordance with STROBE guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, Q., Huang, F., Zhang, L. et al. The effect of high blood pressure-health literacy, self-management behavior, self-efficacy and social support on the health-related quality of life of Kazakh hypertension patients in a low-income rural area of China: a structural equation model. BMC Public Health 21, 1114 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11129-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Kazakh
  • Hypertension
  • Health literacy
  • Health-related quality of life
  • Structural equation model