| Literature DB >> 26593951 |
Tatiana M Davidson1,2, John McGillicuddy3, Martina Mueller4, Brenda Brunner-Jackson5, April Favella6, Ashley Anderson7, Magaly Torres8, Kenneth J Ruggiero9, Frank A Treiber10,11.
Abstract
African Americans and Hispanics have disproportionate rates of uncontrolled essential hypertension (EH) compared to Non-Hispanic Whites. Medication non-adherence (MNA) is the leading modifiable behavior to improved blood pressure (BP) control. The Smartphone Medication Adherence Stops Hypertension (SMASH) program was developed using a patient-centered, theory-guided, iterative design process. Electronic medication trays provided reminder signals, and Short Message Service [SMS] messaging reminded subjects to monitor BP with Bluetooth-enabled monitors. Motivational and reinforcement text messages were sent to participants based upon levels of adherence. Thirty-eight African-American (18) and Hispanic (20) uncontrolled hypertensives completed clinic-based anthropometric and resting BP evaluations prior to randomization, and again at months 1, 3 and 6. Generalized linear mixed modeling (GLMM) revealed statistically significant time-by-treatment interactions (p < 0.0001) indicating significant reductions in resting systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) for the SMASH group vs. the standard care (SC) control group across all time points. 70.6% of SMASH subjects vs. 15.8% of the SC group reached BP control (< 140/90 mmH) at month 1 (p < 0.001). At month 6, 94.4% of the SMASH vs. 41.2% of the SC group exhibited controlled BP (p < 0.003). Our findings provide encouraging evidence that efficacious mHealth, chronic disease, medical regimen, self-management programs can be developed following principles of patient-centered, theory-guided design.Entities:
Keywords: essential hypertension; iterative design; mHealth; patient centered
Year: 2015 PMID: 26593951 PMCID: PMC4695862 DOI: 10.3390/jpm5040389
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Pers Med ISSN: 2075-4426
Descriptive characteristics of subjects.
| Variable | SMASH | SC | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All (n = 18) a | African Americans (n = 8) | Hispanics (n = 10) | All (n = 20) a | African Americans (n = 10) | Hispanics (n = 10) | ||
| Age in years (Mean ± Std.) | 47.50 ± 11.80 | 55.63 ± 10.17 | 41.00 ± 8.78 | 48.45 ± 11.32 | 52.9 ± 11.02 | 44.00 ± 10.25 | |
| Gender | Male | 7 (38.9%) | 1 (12.5%) | 6 (60.0%) | 8 (40.0%) | 2 (20.0%) | 6 (60.0%) |
| Female | 11 (61.1%) | 7 (87.5%) | 4 (40.0%) | 12 (60.0%) | 8 (80.0%) | 4 (40.0%) | |
| Single | 3 (16.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | 3 (30.0%) | 10 (50.0%) | 6 (60.0%) | 4 (40.0%) | |
| Marital Status | Married/With significant other | 10 (55.6%) | 3 (37.5%) | 7 (70.0%) | 6 (30.0%) | 2 (20.0%) | 4 (40.0%) |
| Separated/Divorced | 4 (22.2%) | 4 (50.5%) | 0 (0.0%) | 3 (15.0%) | 2 (20.0%) | 1 (10.0%) | |
| Widowed | 1 (5.6%) | 1 (12.5%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (5.0%) | 0 (0.00%) | 1 (10.0%) | |
| Education | High School or less | 10 (55.6%) | 3 (37.5%) | 7 (70.0%) | 12 (60.0%) | 5 (50.0%) | 7 (70.0%) |
| Partial/college graduate | 8 (44.4%) | 5 (62.5%) | 3 (30.0%) | 8 (40.0%) | 5 (50.0%) | 3 (30.0%) | |
| $0-25K | 7 (38.9%) | 3 (37.5%) | 4 (40.0%) | 8 (40.0%) | 5 (50.0%) | 3 (30.0%) | |
| Income | $25-50K | 6 (33.3%) | 2 (25.5%) | 4 (40.0%) | 5 (25.0%) | 3 (30.0%) | 2 (20.0%) |
| $ >50K | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (5.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (10.0%) | |
| Not Reported | 5 (27.8%) | 3 (37.5%) | 2 (20.0%) | 6 (30.0%) | 2 (20.0%) | 4 (40.0%) | |
| Employment | Full-/Part-time | 11 (61.1%) | 3 (37.5%) | 8 (80.0%) | 14 (70.0%) | 5 (50.0%) | 9 (90.0%) |
| Retired/Disabled | 2 (11.1%) | 2 (25.5%) | 0 (0.0%) | 3 (15.0%) | 3 (30.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| Unemployed | 5 (27.8%) | 3 (37.5%) | 2 (20.0%) | 3 (15.0%) | 2 (20.0%) | (10.0%) | |
a Represents those who completed the trial out of the final sample verified as eligible (SMASH :18/22 ;SC: 20/21).
Figure 1Resting SBP (± SEM) Across Evaluations in SMASH and SC Groups.
Figure 2Resting DBP (± SEM) Across Evaluations in SMASH and SC Groups.
Proportion of participants by Group with SBP controlled.
| Controlled SBP | SMASH | Control | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 00.0% | 00.0% | 1.000 |
| Month 1 | 70.6% | 15.8% | 0.001 |
| Month 3 | 94.4% | 55.0% | 0.009 |
| Month 6 | 94.4% | 41.2% | 0.003 |
| Sustained from month 1 through month 6 | 70.6% | 6.3% | 0.0004 |
Proportion of participants by Group with DBP controlled.
| Controlled DBP | SMASH | Control | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 50.0% | 55.0% | 1.0 |
| Month 1 | 100.0% | 68.4% | 0.02 |
| Month 3 | 100.0% | 65.0% | 0.009 |
| Month 6 | 94.4% | 76.5% | 0.04 |
| Sustained from month 1 through month 6 | 94.1% | 37.5% | 0.0008 |