Performance and persistence of a blood pressure self-management intervention: telemonitoring and self-management in hypertension (TASMINH2) trial.

This study aimed to evaluate, in detail, the implementation of the self-management intervention used in the TASMINH2 trial. The intervention, comprising self-monitoring for the first week of each month and an individualised treatment self-titration schedule, was developed from a previous trial of self-management. Two hundred and sixty-three patients with poorly controlled but treated hypertension were randomised to receive this intervention and underwent training over two or three sessions. Participants were followed up for 12 months during which time process data were collected regarding the persistence and fidelity of actual behaviour compared with intervention recommendations. Two hundred and forty-one (92%) patients completed training of whom 188 (72%) self-managed their BP and completed at least 90% of expected self-monitoring measurements for the full year of the study. Overall, 268/483 (55%) of recommended medication changes were implemented. Only 25 (13%) patients had controlled BP throughout the year and so were not recommended any medication changes. Adherence to the protocol reduced over time as the number of potential changes increased. Of those self-managing throughout, 131 (70%) made at least one medication change, with 77 (41%) implementing all their recommended changes. In conclusion, self-management of hypertension was possible in practice with most participants making at least one medication change. Although adherence to the intervention reduced over time, implementation of treatment recommendations appeared better than equivalent trials using physician titration. Future self-management interventions should aim to better support patients' decision making, perhaps through enhanced use of technology.

Self-monitoring in hypertension: a web-based survey of primary care physicians.

Although self-monitoring of blood pressure is common among people with hypertension, little is known about how general practitioners (GPs) use such readings. This survey aimed to ascertain current views and practice on self-monitoring of UK primary care physicians. An internet-based survey of UK GPs was undertaken using a provider of internet services to UK doctors. The hyperlink to the survey was opened by 928 doctors, and 625 (67%) GPs completed the questionnaire. Of them, 557 (90%) reported having patients who self-monitor, 191 (34%) had a monitor that they lend to patients, 171 (31%) provided training in self-monitoring for their patients and 52 (9%) offered training to other GPs. Three hundred and sixty-seven GPs (66%) recommended at least two readings per day, and 416 (75%) recommended at least 4 days of monitoring at a time. One hundred and eighty (32%) adjusted self-monitored readings to take account of lower pressures in out-of-office settings, and 10/5 mm Hg was the most common adjustment factor used. Self-monitoring of blood pressure was widespread among the patients of responding GPs. Although the majority used appropriate schedules of measurement, some GPs suggested much more frequent home measurements than usual. Further, interpretation of home blood pressure was suboptimal, with only a minority recognising that values for diagnosis and on-treatment target are lower than those for clinic measurement. Subsequent national guidance may improve this situation but will require adequate implementation.