Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28069041›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2017

Understanding how primary care practitioners perceive an online intervention for the management of hypertension.

Katherine Bradbury, Katherine Morton, Rebecca Band, Carl May, Richard McManus, Paul Little, Lucy Yardley

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The current state and future of internet technology-based hypertension management in Japan.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2021
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Opportunity for Pharmacists in Telehealth, Team-Based Care: Clinical Inertia.Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Katherine BradburyAcademic unit of psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. kjb1e08@soton.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-5513-7571
Katherine MortonAcademic unit of psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Rebecca BandAcademic unit of psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Carl MayFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Richard McManusNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Paul LittlePrimary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Lucy YardleyAcademic unit of psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
University of Southampton · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-1211-20001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn order to achieve successful implementation an intervention needs to be acceptable and feasible to its users and must overcome barriers to behaviour change. The Person-Based Approach can help intervention developers to improve their interventions to ensure more successful implementation. This study provides an example of using the Person-Based Approach to refine a digital intervention for hypertension (HOME BP).

methodsOur Person-Based Approach involved conducting qualitative focus groups with practice staff to explore their perceptions of HOME BP and to identify any potential barriers to implementation of the HOME BP procedures. We took an iterative approach moving between data collection, analysis and modifications to the HOME BP intervention, followed by further data collection. The data was analysed using thematic analysis.

resultsMany aspects of HOME BP appeared to be acceptable, persuasive and feasible to implement. Practitioners perceived benefits in using HOME BP, including that it could empower patients to self-manage their health, potentially overcome clinical inertia around prescribing medication and save both the patient and practitioner time. However, practitioners also had some concerns. Some practitioners were concerned about the accuracy of patients' home blood pressure readings, or the potential for home monitoring to cause patients anxiety and therefore increase consultations. Some GPs lacked confidence in choosing multiple medication changes, or had concerns about unanticipated drug interactions. A few nurses were concerned that the model of patient support they were asked to provide was not consistent with their perceived role. Modifications were made to the intervention based on this feedback, which appeared to help overcome practitioners' concerns and improve the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention.

conclusionsThis paper provides a detailed example of using the Person-Based Approach to refine HOME BP, demonstrating how we improved the acceptability and feasibility of HOME BP based on feedback from practice staff. This demonstration may be useful to others developing digital interventions.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelPhysicians, Primary CareFeasibility StudiesHumansHypertensionPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchSelf CareTelemedicineHypertensionIntervention developmentPerson-based approachQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID28069041
PMCPMC5223423
OpenAlexW2571499501

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.