Examining the effectiveness of telemonitoring with routinely acquired blood pressure data in primary care: challenges in the statistical analysis.
Blood pressure control
End digit preference
Hypertension
Implementation study
Quasi-experimental
Routine data
Telemonitoring
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 02 2021
10 02 2021
Historique:
received:
07
09
2020
accepted:
26
01
2021
entrez:
11
2
2021
pubmed:
12
2
2021
medline:
25
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Scale-up BP was a quasi-experimental implementation study, following a successful randomised controlled trial of the roll-out of telemonitoring in primary care across Lothian, Scotland. Our primary objective was to assess the effect of telemonitoring on blood pressure (BP) control using routinely collected data. Telemonitored systolic and diastolic BP were compared with surgery BP measurements from patients not using telemonitoring (comparator patients). The statistical analysis and interpretation of findings was challenging due to the broad range of biases potentially influencing the results, including differences in the frequency of readings, 'white coat effect', end digit preference, and missing data. Four different statistical methods were employed in order to minimise the impact of these biases on the comparison between telemonitoring and comparator groups. These methods were "standardisation with stratification", "standardisation with matching", "regression adjustment for propensity score" and "random coefficient modelling". The first three methods standardised the groups so that all participants provided exactly two measurements at baseline and 6-12 months follow-up prior to analysis. The fourth analysis used linear mixed modelling based on all available data. The standardisation with stratification analysis showed a significantly lower systolic BP in telemonitoring patients at 6-12 months follow-up (-4.06, 95% CI -6.30 to -1.82, p < 0.001) for patients with systolic BP below 135 at baseline. For the standardisation with matching and regression adjustment for propensity score analyses, systolic BP was significantly lower overall (- 5.96, 95% CI -8.36 to - 3.55 , p < 0.001) and (- 3.73, 95% CI- 5.34 to - 2.13, p < 0.001) respectively, even after assuming that - 5 of the difference was due to 'white coat effect'. For the random coefficient modelling, the improvement in systolic BP was estimated to be -3.37 (95% CI -5.41 to -1.33 , p < 0.001) after 1 year. The four analyses provide additional evidence for the effectiveness of telemonitoring in controlling BP in routine primary care. The random coefficient analysis is particularly recommended due to its ability to utilise all available data. However, adjusting for the complex array of biases was difficult. Researchers should appreciate the potential for bias in implementation studies and seek to acquire a detailed understanding of the study context in order to design appropriate analytical approaches.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Scale-up BP was a quasi-experimental implementation study, following a successful randomised controlled trial of the roll-out of telemonitoring in primary care across Lothian, Scotland. Our primary objective was to assess the effect of telemonitoring on blood pressure (BP) control using routinely collected data. Telemonitored systolic and diastolic BP were compared with surgery BP measurements from patients not using telemonitoring (comparator patients). The statistical analysis and interpretation of findings was challenging due to the broad range of biases potentially influencing the results, including differences in the frequency of readings, 'white coat effect', end digit preference, and missing data.
METHODS
Four different statistical methods were employed in order to minimise the impact of these biases on the comparison between telemonitoring and comparator groups. These methods were "standardisation with stratification", "standardisation with matching", "regression adjustment for propensity score" and "random coefficient modelling". The first three methods standardised the groups so that all participants provided exactly two measurements at baseline and 6-12 months follow-up prior to analysis. The fourth analysis used linear mixed modelling based on all available data.
RESULTS
The standardisation with stratification analysis showed a significantly lower systolic BP in telemonitoring patients at 6-12 months follow-up (-4.06, 95% CI -6.30 to -1.82, p < 0.001) for patients with systolic BP below 135 at baseline. For the standardisation with matching and regression adjustment for propensity score analyses, systolic BP was significantly lower overall (- 5.96, 95% CI -8.36 to - 3.55 , p < 0.001) and (- 3.73, 95% CI- 5.34 to - 2.13, p < 0.001) respectively, even after assuming that - 5 of the difference was due to 'white coat effect'. For the random coefficient modelling, the improvement in systolic BP was estimated to be -3.37 (95% CI -5.41 to -1.33 , p < 0.001) after 1 year.
CONCLUSIONS
The four analyses provide additional evidence for the effectiveness of telemonitoring in controlling BP in routine primary care. The random coefficient analysis is particularly recommended due to its ability to utilise all available data. However, adjusting for the complex array of biases was difficult. Researchers should appreciate the potential for bias in implementation studies and seek to acquire a detailed understanding of the study context in order to design appropriate analytical approaches.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33568079
doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01219-8
pii: 10.1186/s12874-021-01219-8
pmc: PMC7877114
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
31Subventions
Organisme : Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate
ID : CZH/4/1135
Organisme : British Heart Foundation
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
Am J Prev Med. 2016 Nov;51(5):843-851
pubmed: 27745684
J Hypertens. 2017 Mar;35(3):421-441
pubmed: 27977471
BMJ Open. 2019 Jan 24;9(1):e024970
pubmed: 30679298
PLoS Med. 2020 Jun 17;17(6):e1003124
pubmed: 32555625
BMJ. 2013 May 24;346:f3030
pubmed: 23709583
J Telemed Telecare. 2018 Jul;24(6):420-427
pubmed: 28490229
BMJ Open. 2018 Jan 31;8(1):e019431
pubmed: 29391369
PLoS Med. 2017 Sep 19;14(9):e1002389
pubmed: 28926573
Pharm Stat. 2021 Jan;20(1):15-24
pubmed: 32776719
Annu Rev Public Health. 2016;37:61-81
pubmed: 26667605
J Am Board Fam Med. 2019 Sep-Oct;32(5):732-738
pubmed: 31506369
J Telemed Telecare. 2017 Oct;23(9):803-813
pubmed: 28758525
Interact J Med Res. 2013 Nov 26;2(2):e29
pubmed: 24280631
Stat Med. 2014 Oct 15;33(23):4053-72
pubmed: 24825821
Clin Trials. 2020 Aug;17(4):370-376
pubmed: 32589046
Transl Behav Med. 2019 Nov 25;9(6):1020-1033
pubmed: 31689344
Stat Med. 2013 Nov 30;32(27):4696-708
pubmed: 23761197
Stat Med. 2007 Jan 30;26(2):443-57
pubmed: 16526009