ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026
Evaluation of Real-World Patient Engagement in a Remote Patient Monitoring for Hypertension Program.
Article 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRemote patient monitoring (RPM) for hypertension is effective for lowering blood pressure (BP), but it is unknown whether engagement in RPM is equal for diverse populations or whether engagement impacts achievement of BP targets.
objectiveTo determine how participant characteristics are associated with level of RPM engagement and examine whether RPM engagement impacts achievement of BP < 140/90 mmHg at six months.
designRetrospective cohort study from January 1, 2022 to August 31, 2023.
participantsAdults with hypertension, referred to RPM by their primary care clinician with the opportunity to be enrolled for least six months of enrollment at an urban academic health center. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was a high level of engagement, defined as measuring BP more than half the days of the month for at least two of the three first months of participation, versus a low level of engagement. The secondary outcome was BP control < 140/90 mmHg by six months. KEY
resultsA total of 835 patients were enrolled in RPM. There were 521 (62.40%) participants with a high level of engagement. Older age (aOR = 1.03, 95% CI [1.01, 1.04]) and lower baseline average systolic BP (aOR = 0.98, 95% CI [0.97, 0.99]) were associated with increased odds of a high level of engagement. Gender, race/ethnicity, and preferred language were not associated with level of engagement. Among all participants, 478 (62.65%) achieved BP control by six months. Those with a high level of engagement, adjusted for age, gender, race/ethnicity, and baseline average systolic BP, had 83% higher odds of achieving BP control compared to those with a low level of engagement (aOR = 1.83, 95% CI [1.24, 2.69]).
conclusionsRPM engagement was feasible in a diverse patient population and was similar across demographic groups. A higher level of engagement was associated with achieving BP control.
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.