Literature DB >> 3760794

Visit frequency for controlled essential hypertension: general practitioners' opinions.

M J Lichtenstein, P M Sweetnam, P C Elwood.   

Abstract

A survey of 50 randomly selected South Glamorgan general practitioners was undertaken to determine how often they would treat and see patients with uncomplicated controlled essential hypertension. The decision to treat for high blood pressure depended on the level of diastolic pressure, patient age and sex, and interactions between diastolic pressure and age and diastolic pressure and sex. The range of responses for visit frequently was every two weeks to once yearly. On average, patients would be seen every 14.8 weeks (standard deviation, 9.2 weeks). The follow-up interval was significantly affected by level of pretreatment diastolic pressure (16 weeks for pressures 95 to 100 mmHg; 13.6 weeks for pressures greater than 105 mmHg), the patient's age (13.9 weeks for those 40 to 49 years old; 15.6 weeks for those 60 to 65 years old), and the decision to treat for high blood pressure (13.4 weeks for those treated; 17.9 weeks for those not treated). If the variability of physician opinion observed in this study is reflected in practice patterns, then it is important to know whether these variations affect outcome. Follow-up intervals can be related to physician, patient, illness characteristics, and outcomes. Visit frequency is a useful variable for studying the process of care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1986        PMID: 3760794

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Fam Pract        ISSN: 0094-3509            Impact factor:   0.493


  8 in total

1.  The role of patients and providers in the timing of follow-up visits. Telephone Care Study Group.

Authors:  H G Welch; M K Chapko; K E James; L M Schwartz; S Woloshin
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Encounter frequency and blood pressure in hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  Alexander Turchin; Saveli I Goldberg; Maria Shubina; Jonathan S Einbinder; Paul R Conlin
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2010-05-24       Impact factor: 10.190

3.  Blood Pressure Visit Intensification in Treatment (BP-Visit) Findings: a Pragmatic Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Kevin Fiscella; Hua He; Mechelle Sanders; Andrea Cassells; Jennifer K Carroll; Stephen K Williams; Jerry Cornell; Tameir Holder; Chamanara Khalida; Jonathan N Tobin
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2021-08-11       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Randomised equivalence trial comparing three month and six month follow up of patients with hypertension by family practitioners.

Authors:  Richard V Birtwhistle; Marshall S Godwin; M Dianne Delva; R Ian Casson; Miu Lam; Susan E MacDonald; Rachelle Seguin; Lucia Rühland
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-01-15

5.  Setting the revisit interval in primary care.

Authors:  L M Schwartz; S Woloshin; J H Wasson; R A Renfrew; H G Welch
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Blood Pressure Visit Intensification Study in Treatment: Trial design.

Authors:  Kevin Fiscella; Gbenga Ogedegbe; Hua He; Jennifer Carroll; Andrea Cassells; Mechelle Sanders; Chamanara Khalida; Brianna D'Orazio; Jonathan N Tobin
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2015-09-12       Impact factor: 4.749

7.  Visit frequency and hypertension.

Authors:  Richard Guthmann; Nancy Davis; Matthew Brown; Jose Elizondo
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.738

8.  Maximizing the value of mobile health monitoring by avoiding redundant patient reports: prediction of depression-related symptoms and adherence problems in automated health assessment services.

Authors:  John D Piette; Jeremy B Sussman; Paul N Pfeiffer; Maria J Silveira; Satinder Singh; Mariel S Lavieri
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2013-07-05       Impact factor: 5.428

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.