OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of mailed hypertension educational materials. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled single-blind trial. SETTING: Primary care practice-based research network in which 9 clinics located in Portland, Oregon participated. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with mildly uncontrolled hypertension as defined as a last blood pressure of 140 to 159/90 to 99 mmHg from query of an electronic medical record database. INTERVENTIONS: Patients randomized to intervention were mailed 2 educational packets approximately 3 months apart. The first mailer included a letter from each patient's primary care provider. The mailer included a booklet providing an overview of hypertension and lifestyle modification and a refrigerator magnet noting target blood pressure. The second mailing also included a letter from the patient's primary care provider, a second educational booklet focused on medication compliance and home blood pressure monitoring, and a blood pressure logbook. The control group consisted of similar patients receiving usual care for hypertension. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients from each group were randomly selected for invitation to participate in a study visit to measure blood pressure and complete a survey (intervention n= 162; control n= 150). No significant difference was found in mean blood pressure between intervention and control patients (135/77 mmHg vs 137/77 mmHg; P=.229). Patients in the intervention arm scored higher on a hypertension knowledge quiz (7.48 +/- 1.6 vs 7.06 +/- 1.6; P=.019), and reported higher satisfaction with several aspects of their care. No significant difference was seen in the prevalence of home blood pressure monitoring ownership or use. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mildly uncontrolled hypertension, educational mailers did not yield a significant decrease in blood pressure. However, significant improvement in patient knowledge, frequency of home monitoring, and satisfaction with care were demonstrated.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of mailed hypertension educational materials. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled single-blind trial. SETTING: Primary care practice-based research network in which 9 clinics located in Portland, Oregon participated. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with mildly uncontrolled hypertension as defined as a last blood pressure of 140 to 159/90 to 99 mmHg from query of an electronic medical record database. INTERVENTIONS:Patients randomized to intervention were mailed 2 educational packets approximately 3 months apart. The first mailer included a letter from each patient's primary care provider. The mailer included a booklet providing an overview of hypertension and lifestyle modification and a refrigerator magnet noting target blood pressure. The second mailing also included a letter from the patient's primary care provider, a second educational booklet focused on medication compliance and home blood pressure monitoring, and a blood pressure logbook. The control group consisted of similar patients receiving usual care for hypertension. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Patients from each group were randomly selected for invitation to participate in a study visit to measure blood pressure and complete a survey (intervention n= 162; control n= 150). No significant difference was found in mean blood pressure between intervention and control patients (135/77 mmHg vs 137/77 mmHg; P=.229). Patients in the intervention arm scored higher on a hypertension knowledge quiz (7.48 +/- 1.6 vs 7.06 +/- 1.6; P=.019), and reported higher satisfaction with several aspects of their care. No significant difference was seen in the prevalence of home blood pressure monitoring ownership or use. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mildly uncontrolled hypertension, educational mailers did not yield a significant decrease in blood pressure. However, significant improvement in patient knowledge, frequency of home monitoring, and satisfaction with care were demonstrated.
Authors: F Gueyffier; F Boutitie; J P Boissel; S Pocock; J Coope; J Cutler; T Ekbom; R Fagard; L Friedman; M Perry; R Prineas; E Schron Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1997-05-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: V L Burt; P Whelton; E J Roccella; C Brown; J A Cutler; M Higgins; M J Horan; D Labarthe Journal: Hypertension Date: 1995-03 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Aram V Chobanian; George L Bakris; Henry R Black; William C Cushman; Lee A Green; Joseph L Izzo; Daniel W Jones; Barry J Materson; Suzanne Oparil; Jackson T Wright; Edward J Roccella Journal: Hypertension Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Nancy T Artinian; Gerald F Fletcher; Dariush Mozaffarian; Penny Kris-Etherton; Linda Van Horn; Alice H Lichtenstein; Shiriki Kumanyika; William E Kraus; Jerome L Fleg; Nancy S Redeker; Janet C Meininger; Joanne Banks; Eileen M Stuart-Shor; Barbara J Fletcher; Todd D Miller; Suzanne Hughes; Lynne T Braun; Laurie A Kopin; Kathy Berra; Laura L Hayman; Linda J Ewing; Philip A Ades; J Larry Durstine; Nancy Houston-Miller; Lora E Burke Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-07-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Danielle E M Brunenberg; Gwenn E C Wetzels; Patricia J Nelemans; Carmen D Dirksen; Johan L Severens; Henri E J H Stoffers; Jan S A G Schouten; Martin H Prins; Peter W de Leeuw; Manuela A Joore Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2007 Impact factor: 4.558
Authors: Jacquelyn S Hunt; Joseph Siemienczuk; Ginger Pape; Yelena Rozenfeld; John MacKay; Benjamin H LeBlanc; Daniel Touchette Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-09-25 Impact factor: 5.128