Literature DB >> 30910876

Acceptability and psychological impact of out-of-office monitoring to diagnose hypertension: an evaluation of survey data from primary care patients.

Alice C Tompson1, Alison M Ward1, Richard J McManus1, Rafael Perera1, Matthew J Thompson2, Carl J Heneghan3, David Nunan3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Out-of-office blood pressure (BP) is recommended for diagnosing hypertension in primary care due to its increased accuracy compared to office BP. Moreover, being diagnosed as hypertensive has previously been linked to lower wellbeing. There is limited evidence regarding the acceptability of out-of-office BP and its impact on wellbeing. AIM: To assess the acceptability and psychological impact of out-of-office monitoring in people with suspected hypertension. DESIGN AND
SETTING: A pre- and post-evaluation of participants with elevated (≥130 mmHg) systolic BP, assessing the psychological impact of 28 days of self-monitoring followed by ambulatory BP monitoring for 24 hours.
METHOD: Participants completed standardised psychological measures pre- and post-monitoring, and a validated acceptability scale post-monitoring. Descriptive data were compared using χ2 tests and binary logistic regression. Pre- and post-monitoring comparisons were made using the paired t-test and Wilcoxon signed rank test.
RESULTS: Out-of-office BP monitoring had no impact on depression and anxiety status in 93% and 85% of participants, respectively. Self-monitoring was more acceptable than ambulatory monitoring (n = 183, median 2.4, interquartile range [IQR] 1.9-3.1 versus median 3.2, IQR 2.7-3.7, P<0.01). When asked directly, 48/183 participants (26%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 20 to 33%) reported that self-monitoring made them anxious, and 55/183 (30%, 95% CI = 24 to 37%) reported that ambulatory monitoring made them anxious.
CONCLUSION: Out-of-office monitoring for hypertension diagnosis does not appear to be harmful. However, health professionals should be aware that in some patients it induces feelings of anxiety, and self-monitoring may be preferable to ambulatory monitoring. © British Journal of General Practice 2019.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ambulatory monitoring; anxiety; blood pressure; depression; self-monitoring; self-reported

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30910876      PMCID: PMC6532801          DOI: 10.3399/bjgp19X702221

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Gen Pract        ISSN: 0960-1643            Impact factor:   5.386


  21 in total

1.  EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life.

Authors: 
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 2.980

2.  Comparison of acceptability of and preferences for different methods of measuring blood pressure in primary care.

Authors:  Paul Little; Jane Barnett; Lucy Barnsley; Jean Marjoram; Alex Fitzgerald-Barron; David Mant
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-08-03

Review 3.  Home measurement of blood pressure and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.

Authors:  Alison M Ward; Osamu Takahashi; Richard Stevens; Carl Heneghan
Journal:  J Hypertens       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 4.844

4.  Using instrument-defined health state transitions to estimate minimally important differences for four preference-based health-related quality of life instruments.

Authors:  Nan Luo; Jeffrey Johnson; Stephen Joel Coons
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Prognostic superiority of daytime ambulatory over conventional blood pressure in four populations: a meta-analysis of 7,030 individuals.

Authors:  Tine W Hansen; Masahiro Kikuya; Lutgarde Thijs; Kristina Björklund-Bodegård; Tatiana Kuznetsova; Takayoshi Ohkubo; Tom Richart; Christian Torp-Pedersen; Lars Lind; Jørgen Jeppesen; Hans Ibsen; Yutaka Imai; Jan A Staessen
Journal:  J Hypertens       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 4.844

6.  Telemonitoring and self-management in the control of hypertension (TASMINH2): a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Richard J McManus; Jonathan Mant; Emma P Bray; Roger Holder; Miren I Jones; Sheila Greenfield; Billingsley Kaambwa; Miriam Banting; Stirling Bryan; Paul Little; Bryan Williams; F D Richard Hobbs
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2010-07-08       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 7.  Diagnosis and management of patients with white-coat and masked hypertension.

Authors:  Giuseppe Mancia; Michele Bombelli; Gino Seravalle; Guido Grassi
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2011-08-09       Impact factor: 32.419

8.  Normative data for the HADS from a large non-clinical sample.

Authors:  J R Crawford; J D Henry; C Crombie; E P Taylor
Journal:  Br J Clin Psychol       Date:  2001-11

9.  Self blood pressure monitoring: a worthy substitute for ambulatory blood pressure?

Authors:  N McGowan; P L Padfield
Journal:  J Hum Hypertens       Date:  2010-02-18       Impact factor: 3.012

10.  Now we are sick: labeling and hypertension.

Authors:  Thomas G Pickering
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 3.738

View more
  2 in total

1.  Patient perceptions of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring testing, tolerability, accessibility, and expense.

Authors:  Jennifer S Ringrose; Raj Bapuji; Wade Coutinho; Omar Mouhammed; Lindsay Bridgland; Thirza Carpenter; Raj Padwal
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2019-12-09       Impact factor: 3.738

2.  Choice of home blood pressure monitoring device: the role of device characteristics among Alaska Native and American Indian peoples.

Authors:  Ashley F Railey; Denise A Dillard; Amber Fyfe-Johnson; Michael Todd; Krista Schaefer; Robert Rosenman
Journal:  BMC Cardiovasc Disord       Date:  2022-01-28       Impact factor: 2.298

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.