Back

Declining Adherence to Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) Diet Among US Adults with Hypertension: NHANES 2003-2018

Parameswaran, V.; Phalke, A.; Gardner, C.; Maron, D. J.

2026-10-01 nutrition
10.64898/2026.09.28.26364241 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Data from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) cycles 1988-1994 and 1999-2004 show a declining trend in the adherence to Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) among adults. Since then, DASH evidence, dietary guidelines, and public-facing dietary resources have advanced, but whether national DASH adherence has improved is uncertain. Methods: We extended the Mellen et al. NHANES analysis among 14,163 adults with self-reported hypertension (N=6,914, 2003-2010, N=7,249, 2011-2018). DASH score included 9 nutrient components: total fat, saturated fat, protein, cholesterol, fiber, calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium, with adherence defined as a score 4.5. Survey-weighted multivariable models compared DASH score, adherence, and nutrient-threshold attainment across periods. Results: In 2011-2018, U.S. adults with self-reported hypertension represented 76.2 million individuals (33.8%). Multivariable-adjusted DASH adherence declined from 22.1% in 2003-2010 to 18.6% in 2011-2018 (p=0.003), and mean DASH score declined from 2.98 to 2.85 (p=0.007). Adjusted odds of adherence were lower in 2011-2018 compared with 2003-2010 (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67-0.91; p=0.002). Adherence was lower among non-Hispanic Black adults (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.84), adults with BMI 30 kg/m2 (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51-0.73), and adults with prior stroke (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.89). Total fat and sodium threshold attainment declined from 20.9% to 18.7% and 13.8% to 11.8%, respectively. Conclusions: DASH adherence among U.S. adults with self-reported hypertension declined from 2003-2011 to 2011-2018. Implementation strategies should identify barriers to adoption and address the full DASH dietary pattern.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.