Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33270032›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2020

Patient Interaction Phenotypes With an Automated Remote Hypertension Monitoring Program and Their Association With Blood Pressure Control: Observational Study.

Anahita Davoudi, Natalie S Lee, Corey Chivers, Timothy Delaney, Elizabeth L Asch, Catherine Reitz, Shivan J Mehta, Krisda H Chaiyachati, Danielle L Mowery

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialObservational Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Anahita Davoudi *Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology & Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4345-3889
Natalie S Lee *National Clinician Scholars Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6335-7934
Corey ChiversPenn Medicine Predictive Healthcare, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7290-2183
Timothy DelaneyCenter for Healthcare Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-2829-367X
Elizabeth L AschLeonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3667-3376
Catherine ReitzCenter for Healthcare Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5393-374X
Shivan J MehtaCenter for Healthcare Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6066-4739
Krisda H Chaiyachati *Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3326-6641
Danielle L Mowery *Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology & Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3802-4457
University of Pennsylvania · USPhiladelphia VA Medical Center · USUniversity of Pennsylvania Health System · US

Funding

The Penn Roybal Center on Behavioral Economics and Health: Solving for Scale and Impact with Design Thinking, Digital Platforms, and Dynamic AdaptationP30AG034546 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Alison Meredith Buttenheim, KEVIN G VOLPP · 2009 to 2026
$10.6M
Learning Health Systems Mentored Career Development ProgramK12HS026372 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI ASCH, DAVID A, LANE-FALL, MEGHAN BROOKS · 2018 to 2022
$3.2M
AHRQ HHS K12 HS026372NIA NIH HHS P30 AG034546
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAutomated texting platforms have emerged as a tool to facilitate communication between patients and health care providers with variable effects on achieving target blood pressure (BP). Understanding differences in the way patients interact with these communication platforms can inform their use and design for hypertension management.

objectiveOur primary aim was to explore the unique phenotypes of patient interactions with an automated text messaging platform for BP monitoring. Our secondary aim was to estimate associations between interaction phenotypes and BP control.

methodsThis study was a secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial for adults with poorly controlled hypertension. A total of 201 patients with established primary care were assigned to the automated texting platform; messages exchanged throughout the 4-month program were analyzed. We used the k-means clustering algorithm to characterize two different interaction phenotypes: program conformity and engagement style. First, we identified unique clusters signifying differences in program conformity based on the frequency over time of error alerts, which were generated to patients when they deviated from the requested text message format (eg, ###/## for BP). Second, we explored overall engagement styles, defined by error alerts and responsiveness to text prompts, unprompted messages, and word count averages. Finally, we applied the chi-square test to identify associations between each interaction phenotype and achieving the target BP.

resultsWe observed 3 categories of program conformity based on their frequency of error alerts: those who immediately and consistently submitted texts without system errors (perfect users, 51/201), those who did so after an initial learning period (adaptive users, 66/201), and those who consistently submitted messages generating errors to the platform (nonadaptive users, 38/201). Next, we observed 3 categories of engagement style: the enthusiast, who tended to submit unprompted messages with high word counts (17/155); the student, who inconsistently engaged (35/155); and the minimalist, who engaged only when prompted (103/155). Of all 6 phenotypes, we observed a statistically significant association between patients demonstrating the minimalist communication style (high adherence, few unprompted messages, limited information sharing) and achieving target BP (P<.001).

conclusionsWe identified unique interaction phenotypes among patients engaging with an automated text message platform for remote BP monitoring. Only the minimalist communication style was associated with achieving target BP. Identifying and understanding interaction phenotypes may be useful for tailoring future automated texting interactions and designing future interventions to achieve better BP control.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedBlood PressureFemaleHumansHypertensionMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, PhysiologicPhenotypeText MessagingYoung Adultcluster analysishypertensiontelemedicinetext messaging

Identifiers

PMID33270032
PMCPMC7746494
OpenAlexW3094510446

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.