Sharada S Shantharam1, Mallika Mahalingam2, Aysha Rasool2, Jeffrey A Reynolds3, Aunima R Bhuiya2, Tyra D Satchell2, John M Chapel2, Nikki A Hawkins4, Christopher D Jones4, Verughese Jacob5, David P Hopkins5. 1. IHRC, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia; Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: ktq4@cdc.gov. 2. Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia; Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 3. Karna, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia; Community Guide Office, Office of the Associate Director for Policy and Strategy, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 4. Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 5. Community Guide Office, Office of the Associate Director for Policy and Strategy, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Self-measured blood pressure monitoring with support is an evidence-based intervention that helps patients control their blood pressure. This systematic economic review describes how certain intervention aspects contribute to effectiveness, intervention cost, and intervention cost per unit of the effectiveness of self-measured blood pressure monitoring with support. METHODS: Papers published between data inception and March 2021 were identified from a database search and manual searches. Papers were included if they focused on self-measured blood pressure monitoring with support and reported blood pressure change and intervention cost. Papers focused on preeclampsia, kidney disease, or drug efficacy were excluded. Quality of estimates was assessed for effectiveness, cost, and cost per unit of effectiveness. Patient characteristics and intervention features were analyzed in 2021 to determine how they impacted effectiveness, intervention cost, and intervention cost per unit of effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 22 studies were included in this review from papers identified in the search. Type of support was not associated with differences in cost and cost per unit of effectiveness. Lower cost and cost per unit of effectiveness were achieved with simple technologies such as interactive phone systems, smartphones, and websites and where providers interacted with patients only as needed. DISCUSSION: Some of the included studies provided only limited information on key outcomes of interest to this review. However, the strength of this review is the systematic collection and synthesis of evidence that revealed the associations between the characteristics of implemented interventions and their patients and the interventions' effectiveness and cost, a useful contribution to the fields of both research and implementation. Published by Elsevier Inc.
INTRODUCTION: Self-measured blood pressure monitoring with support is an evidence-based intervention that helps patients control their blood pressure. This systematic economic review describes how certain intervention aspects contribute to effectiveness, intervention cost, and intervention cost per unit of the effectiveness of self-measured blood pressure monitoring with support. METHODS: Papers published between data inception and March 2021 were identified from a database search and manual searches. Papers were included if they focused on self-measured blood pressure monitoring with support and reported blood pressure change and intervention cost. Papers focused on preeclampsia, kidney disease, or drug efficacy were excluded. Quality of estimates was assessed for effectiveness, cost, and cost per unit of effectiveness. Patient characteristics and intervention features were analyzed in 2021 to determine how they impacted effectiveness, intervention cost, and intervention cost per unit of effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 22 studies were included in this review from papers identified in the search. Type of support was not associated with differences in cost and cost per unit of effectiveness. Lower cost and cost per unit of effectiveness were achieved with simple technologies such as interactive phone systems, smartphones, and websites and where providers interacted with patients only as needed. DISCUSSION: Some of the included studies provided only limited information on key outcomes of interest to this review. However, the strength of this review is the systematic collection and synthesis of evidence that revealed the associations between the characteristics of implemented interventions and their patients and the interventions' effectiveness and cost, a useful contribution to the fields of both research and implementation. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: P A Briss; S Zaza; M Pappaioanou; J Fielding; L Wright-De Agüero; B I Truman; D P Hopkins; P D Mullen; R S Thompson; S H Woolf; V G Carande-Kulis; L Anderson; A R Hinman; D V McQueen; S M Teutsch; J R Harris Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Verughese Jacob; Sajal K Chattopadhyay; Krista K Proia; David P Hopkins; Jeffrey Reynolds; Anilkrishna B Thota; Christopher D Jones; Daniel T Lackland; Kimberly J Rask; Nicolaas P Pronk; John M Clymer; Ron Z Goetzel Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2017-08-14 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Karen L Margolis; Stephen E Asche; Anna R Bergdall; Steven P Dehmer; Sarah E Groen; Holly M Kadrmas; Tessa J Kerby; Krissa J Klotzle; Michael V Maciosek; Ryan D Michels; Patrick J O'Connor; Rachel A Pritchard; Jaime L Sekenski; JoAnn M Sperl-Hillen; Nicole K Trower Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-07-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Wayne Katon; Joan Russo; Elizabeth H B Lin; Julie Schmittdiel; Paul Ciechanowski; Evette Ludman; Do Peterson; Bessie Young; Michael Von Korff Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2012-05
Authors: James E Sharman; Faline S Howes; Geoffrey A Head; Barry P McGrath; Michael Stowasser; Markus Schlaich; Paul Glasziou; Mark R Nelson Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 4.844
Authors: Mark Monahan; Sue Jowett; Alecia Nickless; Marloes Franssen; Sabrina Grant; Sheila Greenfield; F D Richard Hobbs; James Hodgkinson; Jonathan Mant; Richard J McManus Journal: Hypertension Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 10.190