BACKGROUND: Hypertension is generally poorly controlled in primary care. One possible intervention for improving control is the harnessing of patient expertise through education and encouragement to challenge their care. AIM: To determine whether encouraging patients to manage their hypertension in an 'expert' manner, by providing them with information in a clear clinical guideline, coupled with an explicit exhortation to become involved in and to challenge their own care if appropriate, would improve their care. DESIGN OF STUDY: Single blind randomised controlled trial of detailed guideline versus standard information. SETTING: Single urban general practice over 1 year. METHOD: Patient-held guideline with written explicit exhortation to challenge care when appropriate. Two hundred and ninety-four of 536 eligible patients on the practice hypertension register were recruited, all of whom were randomised into one of two groups. Two hundred and thirty-six patients completed the study. PRIMARY OUTCOME: average systolic blood pressure. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: proportion of patients with blood pressure < 150 mmHg systolic and < 90 mmHg diastolic, average cholesterol, proportion of patients prescribed statins and aspirin according to guideline, hospital anxiety and depression score. No clinically, or statistically significant differences were found between intervention and control with respect to all parameters or in anxiety and depression levels. Statin and aspirin use improved throughout the course of the study in both groups. Statin use showed a trend (P = 0.02) in favour of control. CONCLUSION: In this study there was no clinically significant perceived benefit to patients as a result of providing them with a hypertension guideline. Patient guidelines are currently planned for many chronic illnesses. It is important to determine the utility of such interventions before scarce resources are applied to them.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Hypertension is generally poorly controlled in primary care. One possible intervention for improving control is the harnessing of patient expertise through education and encouragement to challenge their care. AIM: To determine whether encouraging patients to manage their hypertension in an 'expert' manner, by providing them with information in a clear clinical guideline, coupled with an explicit exhortation to become involved in and to challenge their own care if appropriate, would improve their care. DESIGN OF STUDY: Single blind randomised controlled trial of detailed guideline versus standard information. SETTING: Single urban general practice over 1 year. METHOD:Patient-held guideline with written explicit exhortation to challenge care when appropriate. Two hundred and ninety-four of 536 eligible patients on the practice hypertension register were recruited, all of whom were randomised into one of two groups. Two hundred and thirty-six patients completed the study. PRIMARY OUTCOME: average systolic blood pressure. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: proportion of patients with blood pressure < 150 mmHg systolic and < 90 mmHg diastolic, average cholesterol, proportion of patients prescribed statins and aspirin according to guideline, hospital anxiety and depression score. No clinically, or statistically significant differences were found between intervention and control with respect to all parameters or in anxiety and depression levels. Statin and aspirin use improved throughout the course of the study in both groups. Statin use showed a trend (P = 0.02) in favour of control. CONCLUSION: In this study there was no clinically significant perceived benefit to patients as a result of providing them with a hypertension guideline. Patient guidelines are currently planned for many chronic illnesses. It is important to determine the utility of such interventions before scarce resources are applied to them.
Authors: B D Frijling; T H Spies; C M Lobo; M E Hulscher; B B van Drenth; J C Braspenning; A Prins; J C van der Wouden; R P Grol Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Paul Little; Martina Dorward; Sarah Gralton; Louise Hammerton; John Pillinger; Peter White; Michael Moore; Jim McKenna; Sheila Payne Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Bryan Williams; Neil R Poulter; Morris J Brown; Mark Davis; Gordon T McInnes; John F Potter; Peter S Sever; Simon McG Thom Journal: BMJ Date: 2004-03-13
Authors: Teresa Molina López; Juan Carlos Domínguez Camacho; Daniel Palma Morgado; María de la O Caraballo Camacho; Juan Carlos Morales Serna; Soledad López Rubio Journal: Aten Primaria Date: 2012-02-16 Impact factor: 1.137
Authors: Cibele D Ribeiro; Vanessa R Resqueti; Íllia Lima; Fernando A L Dias; Liam Glynn; Guilherme A F Fregonezi Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-03-31 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Elke Jeschke; Thomas Ostermann; Horst C Vollmar; Matthias Kröz; Angelina Bockelbrink; Claudia M Witt; Stefan N Willich; Harald Matthes Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2009-12-10 Impact factor: 2.497