Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2026
Effectiveness of Mailed Patient Activation Letters for Blood Pressure Control: A Randomized Quality Improvement Trial.
Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUncontrolled hypertension (HTN) is a leading preventable cause of death. Interventions are needed that activate patients and motivate them to work with clinicians to control their blood pressure (BP).
objectiveTo test whether mailing patients a letter including information about their hypertension and a summary of computerized algorithm-generated medication adjustment suggestions improves BP control processes and outcomes.
designRandomized quality improvement trial.
participantsWe identified patients receiving primary care at a large academic medical center with diagnosed HTN and uncontrolled BP (> 140 mmHg systolic or > 90 mmHg diastolic) at both of their last 2 visits.
interventionsParticipants were randomized into three groups. The BP Activate Letter group received a letter containing algorithm-generated BP medication adjustment suggestions, and a recommendation to discuss these suggestions with their provider; the Control Letter group received a letter that recommended they talk to their provider about their HTN, without specific medication suggestions; and the No Letter group received no mailed outreach. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to occurrence of either a BP medication intensification or documented achievement of BP control to < 140/< 90 mmHg using EHR data extracted 6 months after letters were mailed. KEY
resultsThe primary outcome, which was time to medication intensification or achievement of BP control, did not occur more frequently in the BP Activate Letter group (hazard ratio = 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65 to 1.14), or in the Control Letter group (0.78; 0.59 to 1.03) compared to the No Letter group, and we saw no evidence of significant improvement in any secondary outcome or subgroup. Time to medication intensification appeared to be significantly longer in the Control Letter compared to the No Letter group (0.50; 0.30 to 0.85).
conclusionsMailing patients one letter with computerized BP medication adjustment suggestions to consider did not lead to effective patient activation.
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.