ArticleAmerican journal of hypertension2026
Designing a usable clinician report for home blood pressure monitoring in pregnancy: a mixed methods study.
Article in American journal of hypertension, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDPs) are leading causes of maternal and fetal morbidity; yet uptake of home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) for perinatal detection and management of hypertension remains limited by workflow and integration barriers. We designed and evaluated a clinician-facing HBPM report that integrates blood pressure trends, medication adherence, and pregnancy symptoms to support clinical adoption.
methodsBetween March 2023 and October 2024, we designed and refined HBPM report prototypes through a mixed-method study that included interviews with 16 obstetric providers, using iterative input from a multidisciplinary Clinician Advisory Group. Data on preferences for report features, usability, and workflow integration drawn from provider interviews were compiled and synthesized via convergent quantitative and qualitative methods.
resultsSixteen providers (37.5% nurses, 25% residents, 25% attendings, 12.5% APPs) were interviewed. Providers identified the blood pressure graph, abnormal-value highlights, medication adherence tracker, and symptom log as the most useful features (n = 15-16, ≥90%), while the prenatal vitamin tracker was least useful (n = 9, 56%). Most providers preferred to review the report themselves (n = 11, 73%) and to receive it at a frequency based on clinical need (n = 12, 80%). While most clinicians were willing to integrate the report into their practice, they raised concerns about workflow burden, triage of abnormal readings, and EMR integration as barriers to successful integration.
conclusionsProviders found most elements of the HBPM tool useful for HDP management, but identified workflow and implementation challenges as key barriers, highlighting the need for strategies to support clinical integration.
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.