Literature DB >> 8467308

Evaluation of a structured treatment and teaching programme on hypertension in general practice.

I Mühlhauser1, P T Sawicki, U Didjurgeit, V Jörgens, H J Trampisch, M Berger.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of a structured hypertension treatment and teaching programme in general practice.
DESIGN: Prospective controlled trial; follow-up period 18 months.
SETTING: 10 primary health care practices. PRACTICES AND PATIENTS: From each practice 20 patients (30 to 60 years old, mean of the last two blood pressure measurements at or above 160 and/or 95 mmHg) were randomly selected; in 5 practices these patients were to participate in the treatment and teaching programme; in the remaining 5 practices hypertension care was continued without the availability of such a programme (controls). INTERVENTION: Structured treatment and teaching programme based upon four group sessions for patients mainly conducted by paramedical personnel. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Blood pressure, body weight, prescription of antihypertensive drugs - as documented in the patient's records. MAIN
RESULTS: Of the 100 control patients 26 and of the 100 intervention patients 14 were lost to observation; 46 patients had agreed to participate in the programme. The mean number of prescribed antihypertensive agents per patient decreased in the intervention group (1.8 +/- 1.3 at baseline, vs 1.2 +/- 1.2 at follow-up) compared to the control group (1.6 +/- 1.3 vs 1.8 +/- 1.6); difference 0.8 (95% CI 0.4 to 1.1), p < 0.0001. In the control group 9% and in the intervention group 33% of patients had documented reductions of body weight (p < 0.0001). Blood pressure decreased in the intervention group (162 +/- 14/100 +/- 7 mmHg at baseline, vs 154 +/- 16/95 +/- 9 mmHg at follow-up) compared to the control group (161 +/- 13/98 +/- 7 mmHg vs 158 +/- 18/96 +/- 11 mmHg); differences for systolic blood pressure 5 (95% CI 0 to 10) mmHg, p = 0.071; for diastolic blood pressure 4 (1 to 7) mmHg, p = 0.018.
CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of a structured hypertension treatment and teaching programme in general practice may lead to significant improvements of hypertension care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8467308     DOI: 10.3109/10641969309041615

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Exp Hypertens        ISSN: 1064-1963            Impact factor:   1.749


  9 in total

Review 1.  Meta-analysis does not allow appraisal of complex interventions in diabetes and hypertension self-management: a methodological review.

Authors:  M Lenz; A Steckelberg; B Richter; I Mühlhauser
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2007-05-23       Impact factor: 10.122

Review 2.  Educational and organisational interventions used to improve the management of hypertension in primary care: a systematic review.

Authors:  Tom Fahey; Knut Schroeder; Shah Ebrahim
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 3.  Self-monitoring and other non-pharmacological interventions to improve the management of hypertension in primary care: a systematic review.

Authors:  Liam G Glynn; Andrew W Murphy; Susan M Smith; Knut Schroeder; Tom Fahey
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  What are the basic self-monitoring components for cardiovascular risk management?

Authors:  Alison M Ward; Carl Heneghan; Rafael Perera; Dan Lasserson; David Nunan; David Mant; Paul Glasziou
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2010-11-12       Impact factor: 4.615

5.  Blood pressure control by home monitoring: meta-analysis of randomised trials.

Authors:  Francesco P Cappuccio; Sally M Kerry; Lindsay Forbes; Anna Donald
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-06-11

6.  Prescribing new medications: a taxonomy of physician-patient communication.

Authors:  Derjung M Tarn; John Heritage; Debora A Paterniti; Ron D Hays; Richard L Kravitz; Neil S Wenger
Journal:  Commun Med       Date:  2008

7.  An informed shared decision making programme on the prevention of myocardial infarction for patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care: protocol of a cluster randomised, controlled trial.

Authors:  Susanne Buhse; Ingrid Mühlhauser; Nadine Kuniss; Ulrich Alfons Müller; Thomas Lehmann; Katrin Liethmann; Matthias Lenz
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2015-03-31       Impact factor: 2.497

Review 8.  Meta-regression analyses to explain statistical heterogeneity in a systematic review of strategies for guideline implementation in primary health care.

Authors:  Susanne Unverzagt; Frank Peinemann; Matthias Oemler; Kristin Braun; Andreas Klement
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-10-24       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Informed shared decision-making programme for patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Susanne Buhse; Nadine Kuniss; Kathrin Liethmann; Ulrich Alfons Müller; Thomas Lehmann; Ingrid Mühlhauser
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-12-14       Impact factor: 2.692

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.