Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40892409›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2025

Behavioral Economic Framing for Enrollment and Retention of Patients in Remote Blood Pressure Monitoring: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Shivan J Mehta, Joseph Teel, Evelyn Okorie, Catherine Reitz, Alison Purcell, Christopher K Snider, Kayla Clark, Rebecca C Kersting, Karen Glanz, Mary Putt and 2 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04714398 (SupportBP 2.0), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT04714398 nacompletednot on this map

SupportBP 2.0: Behavioral Science and Enrollment in Remote Monitoring for Hypertension Management

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of PennsylvaniaRan2021 to 2022Enrolled425ConditionsHypertensionArmsOpt-In Recruitment, Opt-Out Recruitment
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

12 authors.

Shivan J MehtaDepartment of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Joseph TeelDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Evelyn OkorieDepartment of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Catherine ReitzDepartment of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Alison PurcellDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Christopher K SniderCenter for Health Care Transformation and Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Kayla ClarkCenter for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Rebecca C KerstingCenter for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Karen GlanzDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Mary PuttCenter for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Charles RareshideCenter for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Kevin G VolppDepartment of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Remote blood pressure (BP) monitoring for hypertension has been limited by low participation and engagement. Objective: To evaluate if an opt-out behavioral economic approach to remote BP monitoring improves enrollment and BP outcomes compared with an opt-in approach. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic, 3-arm randomized clinical trial included patients aged 18 to 75 years with hypertension who were followed up by an academic family medicine practice in Philadelphia. Eligible patients used text messaging, had at least 2 elevated BP measurements during the prior 24 months, and were prescribed hypertension medication. Patients were randomized beginning February 25, 2021, and the last patient completed the program March 22, 2022. Data were analyzed from December 2023 to January 2024. Interventions: Prior to consent, patients were randomized 2:2:1 to opt-in or opt-out recruitment for remote monitoring of BP or to usual-care control. The opt-in group received outreach to consent and enroll in remote monitoring, and those who consented received a home BP monitor; the opt-out group received a home BP monitor and similar recruitment and follow-up. For 6 months, participants in the opt-in and opt-out groups received weekly text messages requesting BP readings and received support from a social partner or clinician as needed. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of all participants in the intervention arms consenting to enroll in remote BP monitoring. Secondary outcomes for the intervention groups included number of BP measurements submitted and proportion of patients actively engaged. Secondary outcomes for all participants were BP measurements and the proportion with controlled BP. Results: Among 424 randomized patients (171 opt-in, 168 opt-out, and 85 control), the mean (SD) age was 52.1 (11.5) years, and 264 (62.3%) were female. A total of 58 patients (33.9%) in the opt-in and 63 (37.5%) in the opt-out arm consented to enroll in monitoring, yielding no significant difference in enrollment rate (3.6 percentage points [pp]; 90% CI, -5.0 to 12.1 pp; P = .49). There was no difference in the mean number of BP measurements submitted (unadjusted difference, -0.03 [95% CI, -0.09 to 0.03] measurements; P = .30) or proportion of actively engaged patients (absolute difference, -0.7 pp [90% CI, -15.6 to 14.3 pp]; P = .94) between intervention arms. Using BP measurements from clinic visits, 55 patients (32.2%) in the opt-in arm and 64 (38.1%) in the opt-out arm had controlled BP, compared with 18 (21.2%) in the control arm (opt-in difference vs control, 11.7 pp [95% CI, -0.2 to 23.5 pp]; P = .05; opt-out difference vs control, 18.0 pp [95% CI, 6.1-30.0 pp]; P = .003). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, the behavioral economic approach of opt-out framing vs opt-in framing did not improve enrollment and retention of patients in a remote BP monitoring program. The findings suggest additional approaches are needed to boost participation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04714398.

Indexed as

Blood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryEconomics, BehavioralHypertensionPatient SelectionAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedTelemedicineText MessagingYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40892409
PMCPMC12406065

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.