Self-monitoring blood pressure in patients with hypertension: an internet-based survey of UK GPs.

BACKGROUND: Previous research suggests that most GPs in the UK use self-monitoring of blood pressure (SMBP) to monitor the control of hypertension rather than for diagnosis. This study sought to assess current practice in the use of self-monitoring and any changes in practice following more recent guideline recommendations. AIM: To survey the views and practice of UK GPs in 2015 with regard to SMBP and compare them with a previous survey carried out in 2011. DESIGN AND SETTING: Web-based survey of a regionally representative sample of 300 UK GPs. METHOD: GPs completed an online questionnaire concerning the use of SMBP in the management of hypertension. Analyses comprised descriptive statistics, tests for between-group differences (z, Wilcoxon signed-rank, and χ2 tests), and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Results were available for 300 GPs (94% of those who started the survey). GPs reported using self-monitoring to diagnose hypertension (169/291; 58%; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 52 to 64) and to monitor control (245/291; 84%; 95% CI = 80 to 88), the former having significantly increased since 2011 (from 37%; 95% CI = 33 to 41; P<0.001) with no change in monitoring for control. More than half of GPs used higher systolic thresholds for diagnosis (118/169; 70%; 95% CI = 63 to 77) and treatment (168/225; 75%; 95% CI = 69 to 80) than recommended in guidelines, and under half (120/289; 42%; 95% CI = 36 to 47) adjusted the SMBP results to guide treatment decisions. CONCLUSION: Since new UK national guidance in 2011, GPs are more likely to use SMBP to diagnose hypertension. However, significant proportions of GPs continue to use non-standard diagnostic and monitoring thresholds. The use of out-of-office methods to improve the accuracy of diagnosis is unlikely to be beneficial if suboptimal thresholds are used.This study was funded by the British Hypertension Society and the NIHR. Ben Fletcher receives funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research (SPCR) Doctoral Studentship. Richard McManus holds an NIHR Professorship (RP-02-12-015)) and receives funding from the NIHR Oxford CLAHRC. This article presents independent research funded by the NIHR. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Royal College of General Practitioners via https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp16X68703

Predicting out-of-office blood pressure level using repeated measurements in the clinic: an observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Identification of people with lower (white-coat effect) or higher (masked effect) blood pressure at home compared to the clinic usually requires ambulatory or home monitoring. This study assessed whether changes in SBP with repeated measurement at a single clinic predict subsequent differences between clinic and home measurements. METHODS: This study used an observational cohort design and included 220 individuals aged 35-84 years, receiving treatment for hypertension, but whose SBP was not controlled. The characteristics of change in SBP over six clinic readings were defined as the SBP drop, the slope and the quadratic coefficient using polynomial regression modelling. The predictive abilities of these characteristics for lower or higher home SBP readings were investigated with logistic regression and repeated operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: The single clinic SBP drop was predictive of the white-coat effect with a sensitivity of 90%, specificity of 50%, positive predictive value of 56% and negative predictive value of 88%. Predictive values for the masked effect and those of the slope and quadratic coefficient were slightly lower, but when the slope and quadratic variables were combined, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values for the masked effect were improved to 91, 48, 24 and 97%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Characteristics obtainable from multiple SBP measurements in a single clinic in patients with treated hypertension appear to reasonably predict those unlikely to have a large white-coat or masked effect, potentially allowing better targeting of out-of-office monitoring in routine clinical practice.This study presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research funding scheme (RP-PG-1209–10051). R.J.Mc.M. holds an NIHR Professorship. J.S. was funded by the NIHR Birmingham and Black Country Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care during part of this work, but now holds a Medical Research Council Strategic Skills Postdoctoral Fellowship. B.W. is a NIHR Senior Investigator and is supported by the NIHR UCL Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre. The TASMINH2 trial was funded by the UK Department of Health Policy Research Programme and the National Coordinating Centre for Research Capacity Development. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, NIHR, or the Department of Health. All equipment used in the study was purchased commercially

Protocol for a randomised controlled trial of telemonitoring and self-management in the control of hypertension: telemonitoring and self-management in hypertension. [ISRCTN17585681].

BACKGROUND: Controlling blood pressure with drugs is a key aspect of cardiovascular disease prevention, but until recently has been the sole preserve of health professionals. Self-management of hypertension is an under researched area in which potential benefits for both patients and professionals are great. METHODS AND DESIGN: The telemonitoring and self-management in hypertension trial (TASMINH2) will be a primary care based randomised controlled trial with embedded economic and qualitative analyses in order to evaluate the costs and effects of increasing patient involvement in blood pressure management, specifically with respect to home monitoring and self titration of antihypertensive medication compared to usual care. Provision of remote monitoring results to participating practices will ensure that practice staff are able to engage with self management and provide assistance where required. 478 patients will be recruited from general practices in the West Midlands, which is sufficient to detect clinically significant differences in systolic blood pressure between self-management and usual care of 5 mmHg with 90% power. Patients will be excluded if they demonstrate an inability to self monitor, their blood pressure is below 140/90 or above 200/100, they are on three or more antihypertensive medications, have a terminal disease or their blood pressure is not managed by their general practitioner. The primary end point is change in mean systolic blood pressure (mmHg) between baseline and each follow up point (6 months and 12 months). Secondary outcomes will include change in mean diastolic blood pressure, costs, adverse events, health behaviours, illness perceptions, beliefs about medication, medication compliance and anxiety. Modelling will evaluate the impact of costs and effects on a system wide basis. The qualitative analysis will draw upon the views of users, informal carers and professionals regarding the acceptability of self-management and prerequisites for future widespread implementation should the trial show this approach to be efficacious. DISCUSSION: The TASMINH2 trial will provide important new evidence regarding the costs and effects of self monitoring with telemonitoring in a representative primary care hypertensive population.RIGHTS : This article is licensed under the BioMed Central licence at http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/license which is similar to the 'Creative Commons Attribution Licence'. In brief you may : copy, distribute, and display the work; make derivative works; or make commercial use of the work - under the following conditions: the original author must be given credit; for any reuse or distribution, it must be made clear to others what the license terms of this work are

Does self-monitoring reduce blood pressure? Meta-analysis with meta-regression of randomized controlled trials

Introduction. Self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) is an increasingly common part of hypertension management. The objectives of this systematic review were to evaluate the systolic and diastolic BP reduction, and achievement of target BP, associated with self-monitoring. Methods. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, database of abstracts of clinical effectiveness, the health technology assessment database, the NHS economic evaluation database, and the TRIP database were searched for studies where the intervention included self-monitoring of BP and the outcome was change in office/ambulatory BP or proportion with controlled BP. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Meta-analysis using a random effects model was combined with meta-regression to investigate heterogeneity in effect sizes. Results. A total of 25 eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (27 comparisons) were identified. Office systolic BP (20 RCTs, 21 comparisons, 5,898 patients) and diastolic BP (23 RCTs, 25 comparisons, 6,038 patients) were significantly reduced in those who self-monitored compared to usual care (weighted mean difference (WMD) systolic −3.82 mmHg (95% confidence interval −5.61 to −2.03), diastolic −1.45 mmHg (−1.95 to −0.94)). Self-monitoring increased the chance of meeting office BP targets (12 RCTs, 13 comparisons, 2,260 patients, relative risk = 1.09 (1.02 to 1.16)). There was significant heterogeneity between studies for all three comparisons, which could be partially accounted for by the use of additional co-interventions. Conclusion. Self-monitoring reduces blood pressure by a small but significant amount. Meta-regression could only account for part of the observed heterogeneity

Cost-effectiveness of self-management of blood pressure in hypertensive patients over 70 years with suboptimal control and established cardiovascular disease or additional cardiovascular risk diseases (TASMIN-SR).

BACKGROUND: A previous economic analysis of self-management, that is, self-monitoring with self-titration of antihypertensive medication evaluated cost-effectiveness among patients with uncomplicated hypertension. This study considered cost-effectiveness of self-management in those with raised blood pressure plus diabetes, chronic kidney disease and/or previous cardiovascular disease. DESIGN AND METHODS: A Markov model-based economic evaluation was undertaken to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of self-management of blood pressure in a cohort of 70-year-old 'high risk' patients, compared with usual care. The model used the results of the TASMIN-SR trial. A cost-utility analysis was undertaken from a UK health and social care perspective, taking into account lifetime costs of treatment, cardiovascular events and quality adjusted life years. A subgroup analysis ran the model separately for men and women. Deterministic sensitivity analyses examined the effect of different time horizons and reduced effectiveness of self-management. RESULTS: Base-case results indicated that self-management was cost-effective compared with usual care, resulting in more quality adjusted life years (0.21) and cost savings (-£830) per patient. There was a 99% chance of the intervention being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per quality adjusted life year gained. Similar results were found for separate cohorts of men and women. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses, provided that the blood pressure lowering effect of self-management was maintained for more than a year. CONCLUSION: Self-management of blood pressure in high-risk people with poorly controlled hypertension not only reduces blood pressure, compared with usual care, but also represents a cost-effective use of healthcare resources.This paper presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (Grant Reference Number RP-PG 0606-1153) and by the NIHR National School of Primary Care Research (NSPCR 16). The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. Service support costs were administered through the Primary Care Research Network and collaborating Comprehensive Local Research Networks. Prof McManus was supported by NIHR Career Development and Professional Fellowships, Professors Hobbs, Little and Williams are NIHR senior investigators. Professor McManus and Hobbs receive support from the NIHR CLAHRC Oxford. Professor Hobbs also receives support from the NIHR School for Primary Care Research and the NIHR Oxford BRC.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from SAGE via https://doi.org/10.1177/204748731561878

Key features of palliative care service delivery to Indigenous peoples in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States: A comprehensive review

Background: Indigenous peoples in developed countries have reduced life expectancies, particularly from chronic diseases. The lack of access to and take up of palliative care services of Indigenous peoples is an ongoing concern. Objectives: To examine and learn from published studies on provision of culturally safe palliative care service delivery to Indigenous people in Australia, New Zealand (NZ), Canada and the United States of America (USA); and to compare Indigenous peoples’ preferences, needs, opportunities and barriers to palliative care. Methods: A comprehensive search of multiple databases was undertaken. Articles were included if they were published in English from 2000 onwards and related to palliative care service delivery for Indigenous populations; papers could use quantitative or qualitative approaches. Common themes were identified using thematic synthesis. Studies were evaluated using Daly’s hierarchy of evidence-for-practice in qualitative research. Results: Of 522 articles screened, 39 were eligible for inclusion. Despite diversity in Indigenous peoples’ experiences across countries, some commonalities were noted in the preferences for palliative care of Indigenous people: to die close to or at home; involvement of family; and the integration of cultural practices. Barriers identified included inaccessibility, affordability, lack of awareness of services, perceptions of palliative care, and inappropriate services. Identified models attempted to address these gaps by adopting the following strategies: community engagement and ownership; flexibility in approach; continuing education and training; a whole-of-service approach; and local partnerships among multiple agencies. Better engagement with Indigenous clients, an increase in number of palliative care patients, improved outcomes, and understanding about palliative care by patients and their families were identified as positive achievements. Conclusions: The results provide a comprehensive overview of identified effective practices with regards to palliative care delivered to Indigenous populations to guide future program developments in this field. Further research is required to explore the palliative care needs and experiences of Indigenous people living in urban areas

Codesigning a systemic discharge intervention for inpatient mental health settings (MINDS): a protocol for integrating realist evaluation and an engineering-based systems approach

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Introduction: Transition following discharge from mental health hospital is high risk in terms of relapse, readmission and suicide. Discharge planning supports transition and reduces risk. It is a complex activity involving interacting systemic elements. The codesigning a systemic discharge intervention for inpatient mental health settings (MINDS) study aims to improve the process for people being discharged, their carers/supporters and staff who work in mental health services, by understanding, co-designing and evaluating implementation of a systemic approach to discharge planning. Methods and analysis: The MINDS study integrates realist research and an engineering-informed systems approach across three stages. Stage 1 applies realist review and evaluation using a systems approach to develop programme theories of discharge planning. Stage 2 uses an Engineering Better Care framework to codesign a novel systemic discharge intervention, which will be subjected to process and economic evaluation in stage 3. The programme theories and resulting care planning approach will be refined throughout the study ready for a future clinical trial. MINDS is co-led by an expert by experience, with researchers with lived experience co-leading each stage. Ethics and dissemination: MINDS stage 1 has received ethical approval from Yorkshire & The Humber—Bradford Leeds (Research Ethics Committee (22/YH/0122). Findings from MINDS will be disseminated via high-impact journal publications and conference presentations, including those with service user and mental health professional audiences. We will establish routes to engage with public and service user communities and National Health Service professionals including blogs, podcasts and short videos. Trial registration number: MINDS is funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR 133013) https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR133013. The realist review protocol is registered on PROSPERO. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021293255.Peer reviewe

Effect of Self-monitoring and Medication Self-titration on Systolic Blood Pressure in Hypertensive Patients at High Risk of Cardiovascular Disease

IMPORTANCE: Self-monitoring of blood pressure with self-titration of antihypertensives (self-management) results in lower blood pressure in patients with hypertension, but there are no data about patients in high-risk groups. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of self-monitoring with self-titration of antihypertensive medication compared with usual care on systolic blood pressure among patients with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A primary care, unblinded, randomized clinical trial involving 552 patients who were aged at least 35 years with a history of stroke, coronary heart disease, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease and with baseline blood pressure of at least 130/80 mm Hg being treated at 59 UK primary care practices was conducted between March 2011 and January 2013. INTERVENTIONS: Self-monitoring of blood pressure combined with an individualized self-titration algorithm. During the study period, the office visit blood pressure measurement target was 130/80 mm Hg and the home measurement target was 120/75 mm Hg. Control patients received usual care consisting of seeing their health care clinician for routine blood pressure measurement and adjustment of medication if necessary. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the difference in systolic blood pressure between intervention and control groups at the 12-month office visit. RESULTS: Primary outcome data were available from 450 patients (81%). The mean baseline blood pressure was 143.1/80.5 mm Hg in the intervention group and 143.6/79.5 mm Hg in the control group. After 12 months, the mean blood pressure had decreased to 128.2/73.8 mm Hg in the intervention group and to 137.8/76.3 mm Hg in the control group, a difference of 9.2 mm Hg (95% CI, 5.7-12.7) in systolic and 3.4 mm Hg (95% CI, 1.8-5.0) in diastolic blood pressure following correction for baseline blood pressure. Multiple imputation for missing values gave similar results: the mean baseline was 143.5/80.2 mm Hg in the intervention group vs 144.2/79.9 mm Hg in the control group, and at 12 months, the mean was 128.6/73.6 mm Hg in the intervention group vs 138.2/76.4 mm Hg in the control group, with a difference of 8.8 mm Hg (95% CI, 4.9-12.7) for systolic and 3.1 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.7-5.5) for diastolic blood pressure between groups. These results were comparable in all subgroups, without excessive adverse events. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with hypertension at high risk of cardiovascular disease, self-monitoring with self-titration of antihypertensive medication compared with usual care resulted in lower systolic blood pressure at 12 months

Schedules for Self-monitoring Blood Pressure: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND Self-monitoring of blood pressure better predicts prognosis than clinic measurement, is popular with patients, and endorsed in hypertension guidelines. However, there is uncertainty over the optimal selfmonitoring schedule. We therefore aimed to determine the optimum schedule to predict future cardiovascular events and determine “true” underlying blood pressure. METHODS Six electronic databases were searched from November 2009 (updating a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] systematic review) to April 2017. Studies that compared aspects of self-monitoring schedules to either prognosis or reliability/reproducibility in hypertensive adults were included. Data on study and population characteristics, self-monitoring regime, and outcomes were extracted by 2 reviewers independently. RESULTS From 5,164 unique articles identified, 25 met the inclusion criteria. Twelve studies were included from the original NICE review, making a total of 37 studies. Increasing the number of days of measurement improved prognostic power: 72%–91% of the theoretical maximum predictive value (asymptotic maximum hazard ratio) was reached by 3 days and 86%–96% by 7 days. Increasing beyond 3 days of measurement did not result in better correlation with ambulatory monitoring. There was no convincing evidence that the timing or number of readings per day had an effect, or that ignoring the first day’s measurement was necessary. CONCLUSIONS Home blood pressure should be measured for 3 days, increased to 7 only when mean blood pressure is close to a diagnostic or treatment threshold. Other aspects of a monitoring schedule can be flexible to facilitate patient uptake of and adherence with self-monitoring.We thank Siobhan Milner, Nashat Qamar, and Sally Fillingham for their support in screening studies. This article presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research funding scheme (RP-PG-1209–10051). R.J.M. was funded by an NIHR Professorship (NIHR-RP-R2-12–015). R.J.M. and F.D.R.H. receive support from the NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) Oxford. The guideline development work undertaken by R.O.M., R.J.M, and B.W. received funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, the Department of Health, or the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence