ArticleClinical epidemiology2025
Self-Measured Blood Pressure Monitoring in Primary Care: Retrospective Analysis from a Large US Healthcare System.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Self-measured blood pressure (SMBP) monitoring, or home blood pressure monitoring, is an evidence-based strategy for hypertension management. However, the extent to which SMBP readings are documented in the electronic health record (EHR)-a critical step in integrating SMBP monitoring into routine care-remains unclear. The objective of this study was to evaluate how race/ethnicity, insurance status, and preferred language are associated with documented SMBP monitoring adoption. Patients and Methods: This retrospective study included adults (aged ≥18 years) with a diagnosis of hypertension and at least one uncontrolled ambulatory blood pressure reading in 2023. All patients had ≥2 primary care visits in 2023. The primary outcome was the presence of at least one SMBP reading documented in the EHR using a structured patient-reported blood pressure readings field. Logistic regression was used to assess associations between patient characteristics and SMBP monitoring documentation. Results: Among 156,444 eligible patients, only 5.0% had at least one SMBP reading documented in the EHR. SMBP readings were mostly recorded during office visits (62.8%). In fully adjusted analyses, Black (OR 0.68; 95% CI, 0.63-0.72) and Hispanic (OR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.65-0.80) patients compared to White patients, Medicaid-insured patients (OR 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.98) compared to Commercial-insured patients, those preferring non-English languages (OR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67-0.88) compared to those preferring English, had lower odds of SMBP monitoring documentation. Conclusion: SMBP monitoring documentation in the EHR was rare and significantly lower among populations experiencing inequities in access, language, and outcomes. Although remote monitoring strategies show promise, poor EHR integration and scalability challenges limit their adoption. Targeted efforts are needed to improve SMBP monitoring documentation workflows, enhance EHR integration, and promote equitable access to hypertension self-management tools.
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.