A Mobile Health Salt Reduction Intervention for People With Hypertension: Results of a Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A high-salt diet is a risk factor for hypertension and cardiovascular disease; therefore, reducing dietary salt intake is a key part of prevention strategies. There are few effective salt reduction interventions suitable for delivery in the primary care setting, where the majority of the management and diagnosis of hypertension occurs. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of a complex behavioral intervention to lower salt intake in people with elevated blood pressure and test the trial procedures for a randomized controlled trial to investigate the intervention's effectiveness. METHODS: This feasibility study was an unblinded, randomized controlled trial of a mobile health intervention for salt reduction versus an advice leaflet (control). The intervention was developed using the Behavior Change Wheel and comprised individualized, brief advice from a health care professional with the use of the SaltSwap app. Participants with an elevated blood pressure recorded in the clinic were recruited through primary care practices in the United Kingdom. Primary outcomes assessed the feasibility of progression to a larger trial, including follow-up attendance, fidelity of intervention delivery, and app use. Secondary outcomes were objectively assessed using changes in salt intake (measured via 24-hour urine collection), salt content of purchased foods, and blood pressure. Qualitative outcomes were assessed using the think-aloud method, and the process outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 47 participants were randomized. All progression criteria were met: follow-up attendance (45/47, 96%), intervention fidelity (25/31, 81%), and app use (27/31, 87%). There was no evidence that the intervention significantly reduced the salt content of purchased foods, salt intake, or blood pressure; however, this feasibility study was not powered to detect changes in secondary outcomes. Process and qualitative outcomes demonstrated that the trial design was feasible and the intervention was acceptable to both individuals and practitioners and positively influenced salt intake behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was acceptable and feasible to deliver within primary care; the trial procedures were practicable, and there was sufficient signal of potential efficacy to change salt intake. With some improvements to the intervention app, a larger trial to assess intervention effectiveness for reducing salt intake and blood pressure is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 20910962; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN20910962.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".