Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23849055›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2013

Interpreting and acting upon home blood pressure readings: a qualitative study.

Konstantina Vasileiou, Julie Barnett, Terry Young

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Konstantina VasileiouDepartment of Information Systems & Computing, Brunel University London, Kingston Lane, Uxbridge UB8 3PH, UK. Konstantina.Vasileiou2@brunel.ac.uk
Julie Barnett
Terry Young
Brunel University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent guidelines recognize the importance of home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) as an adjunct to clinical measurements. We explored how people who have purchased and use a home blood pressure (BP) monitor make sense of, and act upon, readings and how they communicate with their doctor about the practice of home monitoring.

methodsA qualitative study was designed and participants were purposively recruited from several areas in England, UK. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 18 users of home BP monitors. The transcribed data were thematically analysed.

resultsInterpretation of home BP readings is complex, and is often characterised by uncertainty. People seek to assess value normality using 'rules of thumb', and often aim to identify the potential causes of the readings. This is done by drawing on lay models of BP function and by contextualising the readings to personal circumstances. Based on the perceived causes of the problematic readings, actions are initiated, mostly relating to changes in daily routines. Contacting the doctor was more likely when the problematic readings persisted and could not be easily explained, or when participants did not succeed in regulating their BP through their other interventions. Most users had notified their doctor of the practice of home monitoring, but medical involvement varied, with some participants reporting disinterest or reservations by doctors.

conclusionsInvolvement from doctors can help people overcome difficulties and resolve uncertainties around the interpretation of home readings, and ensure that the rules of thumb are appropriate. Home monitoring can be used to strengthen the patient-clinician relationship.

Indexed as

Blood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansHypertensionMaleMiddle AgedPhysician-Patient RelationsQualitative ResearchSelf Care

Identifiers

PMID23849055
PMCPMC3726339
OpenAlexW2154219183

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.