Benjamin R Fletcher1, Lisa Hinton2, Jamie Hartmann-Boyce2, Nia W Roberts3, Niklas Bobrovitz2, Richard J McManus2. 1. Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: benjamin.fletcher@phc.ox.ac.uk. 2. Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 3. Bodleian Health Care Libraries, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the qualitative evidence for patient and clinician perspectives on self-measurement of blood pressure (SMBP) in the management of hypertension focussing on: how SMBP was discussed in consultations; the motivation for patients to start self-monitoring; how both patients and clinicians used SMBP to promote behaviour change; perceived barriers and facilitators to SMBP use by patients and clinicians. METHODS: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cinahl, Web of Science, SocAbs were searched for empirical qualitative studies that met the review objectives. Reporting of included studies was assessed using the COREQ framework. All relevant data from results/findings sections of included reports were extracted, coded inductively using thematic analysis, and overarching themes across studies were abstracted. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included in the synthesis involving 358 patients and 91 clinicians. Three major themes are presented: interpretation, attribution and action; convenience and reassurance v anxiety and uncertainty; and patient autonomy and empowerment improve patient-clinician alliance. CONCLUSIONS: SMBP was successful facilitating the interaction in consultations about hypertension, bridging a potential gap in the traditional patient-clinician relationship. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Uncertainty could be reduced by providing information specifically about how to interpret SMBP, what variation is acceptable, adjustment for home-clinic difference, and for patients what they should be concerned about and how to act.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the qualitative evidence for patient and clinician perspectives on self-measurement of blood pressure (SMBP) in the management of hypertension focussing on: how SMBP was discussed in consultations; the motivation for patients to start self-monitoring; how both patients and clinicians used SMBP to promote behaviour change; perceived barriers and facilitators to SMBP use by patients and clinicians. METHODS: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cinahl, Web of Science, SocAbs were searched for empirical qualitative studies that met the review objectives. Reporting of included studies was assessed using the COREQ framework. All relevant data from results/findings sections of included reports were extracted, coded inductively using thematic analysis, and overarching themes across studies were abstracted. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included in the synthesis involving 358 patients and 91 clinicians. Three major themes are presented: interpretation, attribution and action; convenience and reassurance v anxiety and uncertainty; and patient autonomy and empowerment improve patient-clinician alliance. CONCLUSIONS: SMBP was successful facilitating the interaction in consultations about hypertension, bridging a potential gap in the traditional patient-clinician relationship. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Uncertainty could be reduced by providing information specifically about how to interpret SMBP, what variation is acceptable, adjustment for home-clinic difference, and for patients what they should be concerned about and how to act.
Authors: Matthew E Allen; Taya Irizarry; Julian Einhorn; Thomas W Kamarck; Brian P Suffoletto; Lora E Burke; Bruce L Rollman; Matthew F Muldoon Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2019-06-17
Authors: L Ebony Boulware; Patti L Ephraim; Felicia Hill-Briggs; Debra L Roter; Lee R Bone; Jennifer L Wolff; LaPricia Lewis-Boyer; David M Levine; Raquel C Greer; Deidra C Crews; Kimberly A Gudzune; Michael C Albert; Hema C Ramamurthi; Jessica M Ameling; Clemontina A Davenport; Hui-Jie Lee; Jane F Pendergast; Nae-Yuh Wang; Kathryn A Carson; Valerie Sneed; Debra J Gayles; Sarah J Flynn; Dwyan Monroe; Debra Hickman; Leon Purnell; Michelle Simmons; Annette Fisher; Nicole DePasquale; Jeanne Charleston; Hanan J Aboutamar; Ashley N Cabacungan; Lisa A Cooper Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-11-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Benjamin R Fletcher; Lisa Hinton; Emma P Bray; Andrew Hayen; Fd Richard Hobbs; Jonathan Mant; John F Potter; Richard J McManus Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Alice C Tompson; Alison M Ward; Richard J McManus; Rafael Perera; Matthew J Thompson; Carl J Heneghan; David Nunan Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2019-03-25 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Swetha Kambhampati; Tamara Ashvetiya; Neil J Stone; Roger S Blumenthal; Seth S Martin Journal: Curr Cardiol Rep Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 2.931
Authors: Alice C Tompson; Claire L Schwartz; Susannah Fleming; Alison M Ward; Sheila M Greenfield; Sabrina Grant; Fd Richard Hobbs; Carl J Heneghan; Richard J McManus Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Katherine Morton; Laura Dennison; Carl May; Elizabeth Murray; Paul Little; Richard J McManus; Lucy Yardley Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2016-10-20
Authors: Amy V Creaser; Stacy A Clemes; Silvia Costa; Jennifer Hall; Nicola D Ridgers; Sally E Barber; Daniel D Bingham Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 3.390