Observational studyJournal of primary care & community health
A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of a Primary Care Remote Blood Pressure Monitoring Quality Improvement Pilot.
Observational study in Journal of primary care & community health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionRemote blood pressure monitoring (RBPM) programs are increasingly utilized to improve hypertension care. Rigorous analysis of program outcomes including clinical effectiveness and participant experience can inform future initiatives.
methodsDuring year 1 of the COVID-19 pandemic, we implemented a RBPM program for patients who: (1) received primary care in a single academic medical network, (2) were part of an accountable care financial arrangement, and (3) had uncontrolled hypertension. Evaluation combined a 6-month prospective cohort observational study (assessing the program's association with hypertension control and remote blood pressure [RBP] reporting) with surveys (assessing patient and care team experience.)Results:A total of 150 patients (mean age 57 years, 65% male) enrolled across 10 clinics, of whom 121/150 contributed remote blood pressure data. Among the patients who contributed data, we observed an adjusted reduction in systolic blood pressure by 1.08 mm Hg/month (95% CI = -1.24 to -0.91) and diastolic blood pressure by 0.88 mm Hg/month (95% CI = -0.99 to -0.77) associated with our intervention. The number of patients contributing to RBPM data declined from 121 to 22 from inception to the end of the 6-month study. Among the 61 patient survey respondents (40% response rate), 80% reported high program satisfaction and likelihood to recommend. Survey respondents noted improvements in weight loss (14%), medication compliance (16%), diet (29%), and exercise (35%). Qualitative survey analysis identified themes of patient convenience and increased self-efficacy in blood pressure (BP) management. Quantitative and qualitative patient and care team survey analysis showed technology linkage challenges.
conclusionOverall, our primary care RPBM program was associated with improved blood pressure control among participants and favorable patient and care team experience but experienced challenges of significant decline in blood pressure reporting over time. For future institutional RBPM implementations, we aim to retain the high quality of blood pressure management guidance that participants received while increasing technology connectivity and longitudinal reporting support.
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.