ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2016
Patients' and clinicians' views on the optimum schedules for self-monitoring of blood pressure: a qualitative focus group and interview study.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Schedules for Self-monitoring Blood Pressure: A Systematic Review.American journal of hypertension · 2019Pooled it
- Emergency department clinicians' views on implementing psychosocial care following acute paediatric injury: a qualitative study.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2024Article
- Exploring the patient experience of remote hypertension management in Scotland during COVID-19: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Delineating and clarifying the concept of self-care monitoring: a concept analysis.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2023Review
- Medical Telemonitoring for the Management of Hypertension in Older Patients in Japan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
- How Do We Jump-Start Self-measured Blood Pressure Monitoring in the United States? Addressing Barriers Beyond the Published Literature.American journal of hypertension · 2022Article
- Reliability of Office, Home, and Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurements and Correlation With Left Ventricular Mass.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2020Article
- Accuracy of blood-pressure monitors owned by patients with hypertension (ACCU-RATE study): a cross-sectional, observational study in central England.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020Observational
- Emergence of Home Blood Pressure-Guided Management of Hypertension Based on Global Evidence.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2019Review
- Connecting Home-Based Self-Monitoring of Blood Pressure Data Into Electronic Health Records for Hypertension Care: A Qualitative Inquiry With Primary Care Providers.JMIR formative research · 2019Article
- Implementation of home blood pressure monitoring among French GPs: A long and winding road.PloS one · 2019Article
- Patient experience of home and waiting room blood pressure measurement: a qualitative study of patients with recently diagnosed hypertension.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018Article
- Number of Measurements Needed to Obtain a Reliable Estimate of Home Blood Pressure: Results From the Improving the Detection of Hypertension Study.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2018Article
- A stakeholder co-design approach for developing a community pharmacy service to enhance screening and management of atrial fibrillation.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Blood pressure measurement: a call to arms.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSelf-monitoring of blood pressure is common but guidance on how it should be carried out varies and it is currently unclear how such guidance is viewed.
aimTo explore patients' and healthcare professionals' (HCPs) views and experiences of the use of different self-monitoring regimens to determine what is acceptable and feasible, and to inform future recommendations. DESIGN AND
settingThirteen focus groups and four HCP interviews were held, with a total of 66 participants (41 patients and 25 HCPs) from primary and secondary care with and without experience of self-monitoring.
methodStandard and shortened self-monitoring protocols were both considered. Focus groups and interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using the constant comparative method.
resultsPatients generally supported structured schedules but with sufficient flexibility to allow adaptation to individual routine. They preferred a shorter (3-day) schedule to longer (7-day) regimens. Although HCPs could describe benefits for patients of using a schedule, they were reluctant to recommend a specific schedule. Concerns surrounded the use of different schedules for diagnosis and subsequent monitoring. Appropriate education was seen as vital by all participants to enable a self-monitoring schedule to be followed at home.
conclusionThere is not a 'one size fits all approach' to developing the optimum protocol from the perspective of users and those implementing it. An approach whereby patients are asked to complete the minimum number of readings required for accurate blood pressure estimation in a flexible manner seems most likely to succeed. Informative advice and guidance should incorporate such flexibility for patients and professionals alike.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.