Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34039390›Full record

Trial reportImplementation science : IS2021

Implementing a digital intervention for managing uncontrolled hypertension in Primary Care: a mixed methods process evaluation.

Kate Morton, Laura Dennison, Rebecca Band, Beth Stuart, Laura Wilde, Tara Cheetham-Blake, Elena Heber, Joanna Slodkowska-Barabasz, Paul Little, Richard J McManus and 3 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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.

Kate MortonAcademic Unit of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. k.s.morton@soton.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-6674-0314
Laura DennisonAcademic Unit of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Rebecca BandHealth Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Beth StuartPrimary Care Research, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Laura WildeCentre for Intelligent Healthcare, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Coventry University, Coventry, UK.
Tara Cheetham-BlakeNIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Elena HeberGET.ON Institut, Hamburg, Germany, & University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Joanna Slodkowska-BarabaszAcademic Unit of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Paul LittlePrimary Care Research, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Richard J McManusNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Carl R MayFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Lucy YardleyAcademic Unit of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Katherine BradburyAcademic Unit of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Funding

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

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

HypertensionAntihypertensive AgentsBlood PressureHumansPrimary Health CareAntihypertensive AgentsBlood pressureDigital interventionHypertensionMixed methodsNormalisation Process TheoryProcess evaluation

Identifiers

PMID34039390
PMCPMC8152066

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.