Mixed-methods feasibility study of blood pressure self-screening for hypertension detection.
Aged
Blood Pressure
/ physiology
Blood Pressure Determination
/ economics
Costs and Cost Analysis
Early Diagnosis
Facilities and Services Utilization
Feasibility Studies
Female
General Practice
/ statistics & numerical data
Humans
Hypertension
/ diagnosis
Male
Middle Aged
Patient Acceptance of Health Care
/ statistics & numerical data
Self Care
/ methods
United Kingdom
blood pressure
diagnostic self-evaluation
hypertension
primary healthcare
screening kiosks
Journal
BMJ open
ISSN: 2044-6055
Titre abrégé: BMJ Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101552874
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 May 2019
29 May 2019
Historique:
entrez:
1
6
2019
pubmed:
31
5
2019
medline:
16
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To assess the feasibility of using a blood pressure (BP) self-measurement kiosk-a solid-cuff sphygmomanometer combined with technology to integrate the BP readings into patient electronic medical records- to improve hypertension detection. A concurrent mixed-methods feasibility study incorporating observational and qualitative interview components. Two English general practitioner (GP) surgeries. Adult patients registered at participating surgeries. Staff working at these sites. BP self-measurement kiosks were placed in the waiting rooms for a 12-month period between 2015 and 2016 and compared with a 12-month control period prior to installation. (1) The number of patients using the kiosk and agreeing to transfer of their data into their electronic medical records; (2) the cost of using a kiosk compared with GP/practice nurse BP screening; (3) qualitative themes regarding use of the equipment. Out of 15 624 eligible patients, only 186 (1.2%, 95% CI 1.0% to 1.4%) successfully used the kiosk to directly transfer a BP reading into their medical record. For a considerable portion of the intervention period, no readings were transferred, possibly indicating technical problems with the transfer link. A comparison of costs suggests that at least 52.6% of eligible patients would need to self-screen in order to bring costs below that of screening by GPs and practice nurses. Qualitative interviews confirmed that both patients and staff experienced technical difficulties, and used alternative methods to enter BP results into the medical record. While interviewees were generally positive about checking BP in the waiting room, the electronic transfer system as tested was neither robust, effective nor likely to be a cost-effective approach, thus may not be appropriate for a primary care environment. Since most of the cost of a kiosk system lies in the transfer mechanism, a solid-cuff sphygmomanometer and manual entry of results may be a suitable alternative.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31147366
pii: bmjopen-2018-027986
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027986
pmc: PMC6549634
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e027986Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : NIHR-RP-02-12-015
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : IS-SPC-0514-10043
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : RP-PG-1209-10051
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_PC_11004
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: SF, AT, M-ML, SJ, MM, SG, RH, AW, DM and RJM declare no competing interests. CH has received expenses and payments for media work. He has received expenses from WHO and holds grant funding from the NIHR, the NIHR School of Primary Care Research, The Wellcome Trust and WHO. On occasion, he receives expenses for teaching EBM and is an NHS GP in the out of hours service in Oxford.
Références
Am J Prev Med. 2017 Dec;53(6S2):S121-S130
pubmed: 29153113
J Public Health Med. 2003 Jun;25(2):125-30
pubmed: 12848401
N Engl J Med. 2004 Sep 30;351(14):1448-54
pubmed: 15459308
Lancet. 2016 Jun 4;387(10035):2323-2330
pubmed: 27059888
J Am Soc Hypertens. 2015 Feb;9(2):123-9
pubmed: 25600420
Br J Gen Pract. 2017 Jul;67(660):e467-e473
pubmed: 28483823
J Am Board Fam Med. 2016 Sep-Oct;29(5):620-9
pubmed: 27613795
Lancet. 2016 Oct 8;388(10053):1659-1724
pubmed: 27733284
Med Educ. 2006 May;40(5):405-14
pubmed: 16635119
Am J Hypertens. 2015 Nov;28(11):1316-24
pubmed: 25801901
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Nov 01;19(11):e367
pubmed: 29092808
BMJ. 2010 Sep 17;341:c4587
pubmed: 20851841
J Hypertens. 2006 Feb;24(2):215-33
pubmed: 16508562
JAMA Cardiol. 2017 Jul 1;2(7):775-781
pubmed: 28564682
Br J Nutr. 2015 Jan 14;113(1):1-15
pubmed: 25430608
Implement Sci. 2016 Oct 26;11(1):146
pubmed: 27782832
BMJ Open. 2017 Mar 22;7(3):e013938
pubmed: 28336742
Am J Prev Med. 2017 Dec;53(6S2):S131-S142
pubmed: 29153114
BMJ. 2009 May 19;338:b1665
pubmed: 19454737
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Feb 3;162(3):192-204
pubmed: 25531400
Blood Press Monit. 2006 Apr;11(2):87-90
pubmed: 16534410
N Engl J Med. 2010 Feb 18;362(7):590-9
pubmed: 20089957
Br J Gen Pract. 2013 Aug;63(613):425
pubmed: 23972179