Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23735408›Full record

Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2013

Patient self-monitoring of blood pressure and self-titration of medication in primary care: the TASMINH2 trial qualitative study of health professionals' experiences.

Miren I Jones, Sheila M Greenfield, Emma P Bray, Fd Richard Hobbs, Roger Holder, Paul Little, Jonathan Mant, Bryan Williams, Richard J McManus

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Miren I JonesPrimary Care Clinical Sciences and NIHR School for Primary Care Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham.
Sheila M Greenfield
Emma P Bray
Fd Richard Hobbs
Roger Holder
Paul Little
Jonathan Mant
Bryan Williams
Richard J McManus
NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre · GB

Funding

Department of Health CDF/01/017Department of Health NIHR-RP-02-12-015Department of Health PB-PG-1207-15042Department of Health RP-PG-0606-1153Department of Health RP-PG-1209-10051Medical Research Council MC_PC_13090
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSelf-monitoring with self-titration of antihypertensives leads to reduced blood pressure. Patients are keen on self-monitoring but little is known about healthcare professional views.

aimTo explore health professionals' views and experiences of patient self-management, particularly with respect to future implementation into routine care. DESIGN AND

settingQualitative study embedded within a randomised controlled trial of healthcare professionals participating in the TASMINH2 trial of patient self-monitoring with self-titration of antihypertensives from 24 West Midlands general practices.

methodTaped and transcribed semi-structured interviews with 13 GPs, two practice nurses and one healthcare assistant. Constant comparative method of analysis.

resultsPrimary care professionals were positive about self-monitoring, but procedures for ensuring patients measured blood pressure correctly were haphazard. GPs interpreted home readings variably, with many not making adjustment for lower home blood pressure. Interviewees were satisfied with patient training and arrangements for blood pressure monitoring and self-titration of medication during the trial, but less sure about future implementation into routine care. There was evidence of a need for training of both patients and professionals for successful integration of self-management.

conclusionHealth professionals wanted more patient involvement in hypertension care but needed a framework to work within. Consideration of how to train patients to measure blood pressure and how home readings become part of their care is required before self-monitoring and self-titration can be implemented widely. As home monitoring becomes more widespread, the development of patient self-management, including self-titration of medication, should follow but this may take time to achieve.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelBlood PressureBlood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryPrimary Health CareSelf CareAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntihypertensive AgentsEnglandFemaleHealth BehaviorHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PersonnelHumansHypertensionAntihypertensive Agents

Identifiers

PMID23735408
PMCPMC3662454
OpenAlexW2133146275

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.