McManus R J, Mant J, Roalfe A, Oakes R A, Bryan S, Pattison H M, Hobbs F D R
Department of Primary Care and General Practice, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT.
BMJ. 2005 Sep 3;331(7515):493. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38558.393669.E0. Epub 2005 Aug 22.
To assess whether blood pressure control in primary care could be improved with the use of patient held targets and self monitoring in a practice setting, and to assess the impact of these on health behaviours, anxiety, prescribed antihypertensive drugs, patients' preferences, and costs.
Randomised controlled trial.
Eight general practices in south Birmingham.
441 people receiving treatment in primary care for hypertension but not controlled below the target of < 140/85 mm Hg.
Patients in the intervention group received treatment targets along with facilities to measure their own blood pressure at their general practice; they were also asked to visit their general practitioner or practice nurse if their blood pressure was repeatedly above the target level. Patients in the control group received usual care (blood pressure monitoring by their practice).
change in systolic blood pressure at six months and one year in both intervention and control groups.
change in health behaviours, anxiety, prescribed antihypertensive drugs, patients' preferences of method of blood pressure monitoring, and costs.
400 (91%) patients attended follow up at one year. Systolic blood pressure in the intervention group had significantly reduced after six months (mean difference 4.3 mm Hg (95% confidence interval 0.8 mm Hg to 7.9 mm Hg)) but not after one year (mean difference 2.7 mm Hg (- 1.2 mm Hg to 6.6 mm Hg)). No overall difference was found in diastolic blood pressure, anxiety, health behaviours, or number of prescribed drugs. Patients who self monitored lost more weight than controls (as evidenced by a drop in body mass index), rated self monitoring above monitoring by a doctor or nurse, and consulted less often. Overall, self monitoring did not cost significantly more than usual care (251 pounds sterling (437 dollars; 364 euros) (95% confidence interval 233 pounds sterling to 275 pounds sterling) versus 240 pounds sterling (217 pounds sterling to 263 pounds sterling).
Practice based self monitoring resulted in small but significant improvements of blood pressure at six months, which were not sustained after a year. Self monitoring was well received by patients, anxiety did not increase, and there was no appreciable additional cost. Practice based self monitoring is feasible and results in blood pressure control that is similar to that in usual care.
评估在基层医疗环境中使用患者设定目标和自我监测是否能改善血压控制情况,并评估其对健康行为、焦虑情绪、降压药物处方、患者偏好及成本的影响。
随机对照试验。
伯明翰南部的8家全科诊所。
441名在基层医疗中接受高血压治疗但血压未控制在低于140/85 mmHg目标值的患者。
干预组患者获得治疗目标以及在其全科诊所测量自身血压的设备;若血压反复高于目标水平,还被要求就诊于全科医生或执业护士。对照组患者接受常规护理(由诊所监测血压)。
干预组和对照组在6个月及1年时收缩压的变化。
健康行为、焦虑情绪、降压药物处方、患者对血压监测方法的偏好及成本的变化。
400名(91%)患者在1年时接受了随访。干预组收缩压在6个月后显著降低(平均差值4.3 mmHg(95%置信区间0.8 mmHg至7.9 mmHg)),但1年后未降低(平均差值2.7 mmHg(-1.2 mmHg至6.6 mmHg))。舒张压、焦虑情绪、健康行为或降压药物处方数量未发现总体差异。自我监测的患者比对照组体重减轻更多(体重指数下降证明),对自我监测的评价高于医生或护士的监测,就诊频率更低。总体而言,自我监测的成本并不显著高于常规护理(251英镑(437美元;364欧元)(95%置信区间233英镑至275英镑)对240英镑(217英镑至263英镑))。
基于诊所的自我监测在6个月时使血压有小幅但显著的改善,1年后未持续。患者对自我监测接受度良好,焦虑情绪未增加,且无明显额外成本。基于诊所的自我监测可行,且血压控制效果与常规护理相似。