Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30348884›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2018

Patient experience of home and waiting room blood pressure measurement: a qualitative study of patients with recently diagnosed hypertension.

Alice C Tompson, Claire L Schwartz, Susannah Fleming, Alison M Ward, Sheila M Greenfield, Sabrina Grant, Fd Richard Hobbs, Carl J Heneghan, Richard J McManus

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Delineating and clarifying the concept of self-care monitoring: a concept analysis.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2023
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alice C TompsonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Claire L SchwartzNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Susannah FlemingNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Alison M WardNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Sheila M GreenfieldInstitute of Applied Health Service Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham.
Sabrina GrantTranslational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Southmead Hospital, Bristol.
Fd Richard HobbsNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Carl J HeneghanNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Richard J McManusNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
University of Oxford · GB

Funding

Department of Health IS-SPC-0514-10043Department of Health NIHR-RP-02-12-015Department of Health RP-PG-1209-10051
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOut-of-office blood pressure (BP) measurement is advocated to confirm hypertension diagnosis. However, little is known about how primary care patients view and use such measurement.

aimTo investigate patient experience of out-of-office BP monitoring, particularly home and practice waiting room BP measurement, before, during, and after diagnosis. DESIGN AND

settingA cross-sectional, qualitative study with patients from two UK GP surgeries participating in a feasibility study of waiting room BP measurement.

methodInterviewees were identified from recent additions to the practice hypertension register. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded thematically.

resultsOf 29 interviewees, 9 (31%) and 22 (76%) had used the waiting room monitor and/or monitored at home respectively. Out-of-office monitoring was used by patients as evidence of control or the lack of need for medication, with the printed results slips from the waiting room monitor perceived to improve 'trustworthiness'. The waiting room monitor enabled those experiencing uncertainty about their equipment or technique to double-check readings. Monitoring at home allowed a more intensive and/or flexible schedule to investigate BP fluctuations and the impact of medication and lifestyle changes. A minority used self-monitoring to inform drug holidays. Reduced intensity of monitoring was reported with both modalities following diagnosis as initial anxiety or patient and GP interest decreased.

conclusionHome and practice waiting room measurements have overlapping but differing roles for patients. Waiting room BP monitors may be a useful out-of-office measurement modality for patients unwilling and/or unable to measure and record their BP at home.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareAdultAgedBlood PressureBlood Pressure DeterminationCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansHypertensionMaleMiddle AgedOffice VisitsPatient CompliancePatient PreferenceQualitative ResearchReproducibility of Resultsblood pressurediagnosishome blood pressure monitoringhypertensionmeasurequalitative researchself-monitoring

Identifiers

PMID30348884
PMCPMC6255226
OpenAlexW2897487857

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.