American journal of hypertension · 2026
Implementation of a Self-Measured Blood Pressure Pilot Program in an Academic Internal Medicine Practice.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cluett Jennifer L, Farahmand Rosemary, Barkowski Laken, Cohen Marc, Li Jonathan, Olowoyeye Ruthie, Rakotz Michael, Sachdev Neha, Sullivan Kristine, Tighe Miller Katherine, Tsipas Stavros, Wozniak Gregory, Juraschek Stephen P
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Self-measured blood pressure (SMBP) monitoring is a proposed strategy to improve hypertension control, but few studies compare SMBP with automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurements over time. Moreover, little is known about reimbursement for these services.
METHODS: We describe a quality improvement initiative in our academic internal medicine practice. Patients received validated home blood pressure (BP) devices and were instructed to check their BP twice daily for 7 days each month. Devices transmitted readings seamlessly via a smartphone application that averaged weekly readings. Clinicians reviewed the data and adjusted therapy if indicated. We tracked changes in SMBP, AOBP, antihypertensive medications, and reimbursement.
RESULTS: Among 140 patients referred (mean age 57.6 years, 57.1% women, 25.7% Black), 59 completed the program. Over 6 months, the mean self-measured systolic BP decreased by 5.8 mm Hg (95% CI: -8.2 to -3.5) and the mean diastolic BP decreased by 2.8 mm Hg (95% CI: -4.2 to -1.4) and the number with BP <130/<80 mm Hg increased by 22 percentage points (P = 0.007). However, unattended AOBP showed no change in either systolic (change: 0.1 mm Hg; P = 0.98) or diastolic (change: -0.6 mm Hg; P = 0.64) readings. Reimbursement was variable and ranged from no payment to a maximum payment of $51; when paid, the average payment was $13.81.
CONCLUSIONS: In this program, SMBP decreased over time while AOBP remained similar. Reimbursement, when received, was modest. Future work should evaluate whether using SMBP as a therapeutic target reduces cardiovascular events.
METHODS: We describe a quality improvement initiative in our academic internal medicine practice. Patients received validated home blood pressure (BP) devices and were instructed to check their BP twice daily for 7 days each month. Devices transmitted readings seamlessly via a smartphone application that averaged weekly readings. Clinicians reviewed the data and adjusted therapy if indicated. We tracked changes in SMBP, AOBP, antihypertensive medications, and reimbursement.
RESULTS: Among 140 patients referred (mean age 57.6 years, 57.1% women, 25.7% Black), 59 completed the program. Over 6 months, the mean self-measured systolic BP decreased by 5.8 mm Hg (95% CI: -8.2 to -3.5) and the mean diastolic BP decreased by 2.8 mm Hg (95% CI: -4.2 to -1.4) and the number with BP <130/<80 mm Hg increased by 22 percentage points (P = 0.007). However, unattended AOBP showed no change in either systolic (change: 0.1 mm Hg; P = 0.98) or diastolic (change: -0.6 mm Hg; P = 0.64) readings. Reimbursement was variable and ranged from no payment to a maximum payment of $51; when paid, the average payment was $13.81.
CONCLUSIONS: In this program, SMBP decreased over time while AOBP remained similar. Reimbursement, when received, was modest. Future work should evaluate whether using SMBP as a therapeutic target reduces cardiovascular events.