BACKGROUND: Disparities in blood pressure (BP) control may be a function of disparities in treatment intensification (TI). OBJECTIVE: To examine racial differences in TI, understand modifiable factors that may mediate this relationship, and explore the relative effects of TI and race on blood pressure. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 819 black and white patients with hypertension from an urban, safety-net hospital MAIN MEASURES: We sequentially explored the effects of patient race, sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, beliefs about BP/medications, perceptions of provider/discrimination, sodium intake, medication adherence, and provider counseling on TI, performing a series of random effects analyses. To assess the effects of race and TI on BP, we performed linear regressions, using systolic BP (SBP) as the outcome. KEY RESULTS: Unadjusted analyses and those including sociodemographic and clinical characteristics revealed that black patients had less TI than whites (-0.31 vs.-0.24, p < 0.001), but adjustment for patient beliefs and experiences eliminated the effects of race (beta =-0.02, p = 0.5). Increased patient concerns about BP medications were related to lower TI, as was more provider counseling (beta =-0.06, p = 0.02 and beta = -0.01, p = 0.001, respectively). In the unadjusted analysis, black race was a significant predictor of SBP (134 mm/Hg for blacks vs. 131 mm/Hg for whites, p = 0.009), but when both race and TI were included in the model, TI was a significant predictor of SBP (final SBP 2.0 mm/Hg lower for each additional therapy increase per 10 visits, p < 0.001), while race was not (Blacks 1.6 mm/Hg higher than whites, p = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: Improved patient-provider communication targeted towards addressing patient concerns about medications may have the potential to reduce racial disparities in TI and ultimately, BP control.
BACKGROUND: Disparities in blood pressure (BP) control may be a function of disparities in treatment intensification (TI). OBJECTIVE: To examine racial differences in TI, understand modifiable factors that may mediate this relationship, and explore the relative effects of TI and race on blood pressure. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 819 black and white patients with hypertension from an urban, safety-net hospital MAIN MEASURES: We sequentially explored the effects of patient race, sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, beliefs about BP/medications, perceptions of provider/discrimination, sodium intake, medication adherence, and provider counseling on TI, performing a series of random effects analyses. To assess the effects of race and TI on BP, we performed linear regressions, using systolic BP (SBP) as the outcome. KEY RESULTS: Unadjusted analyses and those including sociodemographic and clinical characteristics revealed that black patients had less TI than whites (-0.31 vs.-0.24, p < 0.001), but adjustment for patient beliefs and experiences eliminated the effects of race (beta =-0.02, p = 0.5). Increased patient concerns about BP medications were related to lower TI, as was more provider counseling (beta =-0.06, p = 0.02 and beta = -0.01, p = 0.001, respectively). In the unadjusted analysis, black race was a significant predictor of SBP (134 mm/Hg for blacks vs. 131 mm/Hg for whites, p = 0.009), but when both race and TI were included in the model, TI was a significant predictor of SBP (final SBP 2.0 mm/Hg lower for each additional therapy increase per 10 visits, p < 0.001), while race was not (Blacks 1.6 mm/Hg higher than whites, p = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: Improved patient-provider communication targeted towards addressing patient concerns about medications may have the potential to reduce racial disparities in TI and ultimately, BP control.
Authors: L S Phillips; W T Branch; C B Cook; J P Doyle; I M El-Kebbi; D L Gallina; C D Miller; D C Ziemer; C S Barnes Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2001-11-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Rachel L Johnson; Somnath Saha; Jose J Arbelaez; Mary Catherine Beach; Lisa A Cooper Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Robert Horne; Deanna Buick; Martin Fisher; Heather Leake; Vanessa Cooper; John Weinman Journal: Int J STD AIDS Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 1.359
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: JAMA Date: 2003-05-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David J Hyman; Valory N Pavlik; Anthony J Greisinger; Wenyaw Chan; Jose Bayona; Carol Mansyur; Victor Simms; James Pool Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-10-27 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Valy Fontil; Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; Dhruv S Kazi; Stephen Sidney; Pamela G Coxson; Raman Khanna; Ronald G Victor; Mark J Pletcher Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-03-07 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Courtney R Lyles; Andrew J Karter; Bessie A Young; Clarence Spigner; David Grembowski; Dean Schillinger; Nancy Adler Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-05-06 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Vickie L Shavers; Pebbles Fagan; Dionne Jones; William M P Klein; Josephine Boyington; Carmen Moten; Edward Rorie Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Barry L Carter; Christopher S Coffey; Liz Uribe; Paul A James; Brent M Egan; Gail Ardery; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Dixie Ecklund; Mark Vander Weg; Thomas Vaughn Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2013-04-01 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: Rupali Kotwal Doshi; David Malebranche; Lisa Bowleg; Thurka Sangaramoorthy Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2012-12-26 Impact factor: 5.078
Authors: Nancy R Kressin; Judith A Long; Mark E Glickman; Barbara G Bokhour; Michelle B Orner; Christine Clark; James A Rothendler; Dan R Berlowitz Journal: Ethn Dis Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 1.847