Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29258469›Full record

Observational studyBMC pregnancy and childbirth2017

Blood pressure self-monitoring in pregnancy (BuMP) feasibility study; a qualitative analysis of women's experiences of self-monitoring.

Lisa Hinton, Katherine L Tucker, Sheila M Greenfield, James A Hodgkinson, Lucy Mackillop, Christine McCourt, Trisha Carver, Carole Crawford, Margaret Glogowska, Louise Locock and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

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

13 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Lisa HintonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, New Radcliffe House, Woodstock Rd, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK. Lisa.Hinton@phc.ox.ac.uk.
Katherine L TuckerNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, New Radcliffe House, Woodstock Rd, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
Sheila M GreenfieldInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
James A HodgkinsonInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Lucy MackillopOxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Women's Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK.
Christine McCourtCity, University of London, Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB, UK.
Trisha CarverNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, New Radcliffe House, Woodstock Rd, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
Carole CrawfordNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, New Radcliffe House, Woodstock Rd, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
Margaret GlogowskaNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, New Radcliffe House, Woodstock Rd, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
Louise LocockHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK.
Mary SelwoodNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, New Radcliffe House, Woodstock Rd, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
Kathryn S TaylorNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, New Radcliffe House, Woodstock Rd, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
Richard J McManusNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, New Radcliffe House, Woodstock Rd, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
University of Oxford · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GBCity, University of London · GBOxford University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBUniversity of Aberdeen · GB

Funding

Department of Health NIHR-RP-02-12-015Department of Health RP-PG-0614-20005National Institute for Health Research (GB) School of Primary Care Research 171
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHypertensive disorders in pregnancy are a leading cause of maternal and fetal morbidity worldwide. Raised blood pressure (BP) affects 10% of pregnancies worldwide, of which almost half develop pre-eclampsia. The proportion of pregnant women who have risk factors for pre-eclampsia (such as pre-existing hypertension, obesity and advanced maternal age) is increasing. Pre-eclampsia can manifest itself before women experience symptoms and can develop between antenatal visits. Incentives to improve early detection of gestational hypertensive disorders are therefore strong and self-monitoring of blood pressure (SMBP) in pregnancy might be one means to achieve this, whilst improving women's involvement in antenatal care. The Blood Pressure Self-Monitoring in Pregnancy (BuMP) study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of SMBP in pregnancy.

methodsTo understand women's experiences of SMBP during pregnancy, we undertook a qualitative study embedded within the BuMP observational feasibility study. Women who were at higher risk of developing hypertension and/or pre-eclampsia were invited to take part in a study using SMBP and also invited to take part in an interview. Semi-structured interviews were conducted at the women's homes in Oxfordshire and Birmingham with women who were self-monitoring their BP as part of the BuMP feasibility study in 2014. Interviews were conducted by a qualitative researcher and transcribed verbatim. A framework approach was used for analysis.

resultsFifteen women agreed to be interviewed. Respondents reported general willingness to engage with monitoring their own BP, feeling that it could reduce anxiety around their health during pregnancy, particularly if they had previous experience of raised BP or pre-eclampsia. They felt able to incorporate self-monitoring into their weekly routines, although this was harder post-partum. Self-monitoring of BP made them more aware of the risks of hypertension and pre-eclampsia in pregnancy. Feelings of reassurance and empowerment were commonly reported by the women in our sample.

conclusionsSMBP in pregnancy was both acceptable and feasible to women in this small pilot study.

Indexed as

Blood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryPatient Acceptance of Health CareSelf CareAdultEarly DiagnosisFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicPower, PsychologicalPre-EclampsiaPregnancyQualitative ResearchRisk FactorsYoung AdultBlood pressureHypertensionPre-eclampsiaPregnancyQualitativeSelf-monitoringWomen’s experiences

Identifiers

PMID29258469
PMCPMC5735874
OpenAlexW2773054008

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.