Trial reportImplementation science : IS2021
Implementing a digital intervention for managing uncontrolled hypertension in Primary Care: a mixed methods process evaluation.
Trial report in Implementation science : IS, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Barriers and facilitators to digital health tool adoption for hypertension management: systematic review of qualitative studies.BMJ open · 2026Pooled it
- Factors Influencing the Uptake of Digital Health Interventions for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Among Healthcare Providers: A Systematic Review.Global heart · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Supporting translation of research evidence into practice-the use of Normalisation Process Theory to assess and inform implementation within randomised controlled trials: a systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2023Pooled it
- Article
- Implementing a Digital Physical Activity Intervention for Older Adults: Qualitative Study.JMIR aging · 2025Article
- Article
- Process evaluation of an mHealth-based school education program to reduce salt intake scaling up in China (EduSaltS): a mixed methods study using the RE-AIM framework.BMC public health · 2024Article
- A Cross-Sectional Survey of Fixed-Dose Combination Antihypertensive Medicine Prescribing in Twenty-Four Countries, Including Qualitative Insights.Global heart · 2024Article
- Implementation Science Perspectives on Implementing Telemedicine Interventions for Hypertension or Diabetes Management: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Protocol for a mixed methods process evaluation of the Promoting Resilience in Nurses (PRiN) trial.International journal of mental health nursing · 2022Article
- 'We did everything we could'- a qualitative study exploring the acceptability of maternal-fetal surgery for spina bifida to parents.Prenatal diagnosis · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA high proportion of hypertensive patients remain above the target threshold for blood pressure, increasing the risk of adverse health outcomes. A digital intervention to facilitate healthcare practitioners (hereafter practitioners) to initiate planned medication escalations when patients' home readings were raised was found to be effective in lowering blood pressure over 12 months. This mixed-methods process evaluation aimed to develop a detailed understanding of how the intervention was implemented in Primary Care, possible mechanisms of action and contextual factors influencing implementation.
methodsOne hundred twenty-five practitioners took part in a randomised controlled trial, including GPs, practice nurses, nurse-prescribers, and healthcare assistants. Usage data were collected automatically by the digital intervention and antihypertensive medication changes were recorded from the patients' medical notes. A sub-sample of 27 practitioners took part in semi-structured qualitative process interviews. The qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis and the quantitative data using descriptive statistics and correlations to explore factors related to adherence. The two sets of findings were integrated using a triangulation protocol.
resultsMean practitioner adherence to escalating medication was moderate (53%), and the qualitative analysis suggested that low trust in home readings and the decision to wait for more evidence influenced implementation for some practitioners. The logic model was partially supported in that self-efficacy was related to adherence to medication escalation, but qualitative findings provided further insight into additional potential mechanisms, including perceived necessity and concerns. Contextual factors influencing implementation included proximity of average readings to the target threshold. Meanwhile, adherence to delivering remote support was mixed, and practitioners described some uncertainty when they received no response from patients.
conclusionsThis mixed-methods process evaluation provided novel insights into practitioners' decision-making around escalating medication using a digital algorithm. Implementation strategies were proposed which could benefit digital interventions in addressing clinical inertia, including facilitating tracking of patients' readings over time to provide stronger evidence for medication escalation, and allowing more flexibility in decision-making whilst discouraging clinical inertia due to borderline readings. Implementation of one-way notification systems could be facilitated by enabling patients to send a brief acknowledgement response.
trial registration( ISRCTN13790648 ). Registered 14 May 2015.
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.