Self-monitoring blood pressure in Pregnancy: Evaluation of health professional experiences of the BUMP trials.

BACKGROUND: The BUMP trials evaluated a self-monitoring of blood pressure intervention in addition to usual care, testing whether they improved detection or control of hypertension for women at risk of hypertension or with hypertension during pregnancy. This process evaluation aimed to understand healthcare professionals' perspectives and experiences of the BUMP trials of self-monitoring of blood pressure during pregnancy. METHODS: Twenty-two in-depth qualitative interviews and an online survey with 328 healthcare professionals providing care for pregnant people in the BUMP trials were carried out across five maternity units in England. RESULTS: Analysis used Normalisation Process Theory to identify factors required for successful implementation and integration into routine practice. Healthcare professionals felt self-monitoring of blood pressure did not over-medicalise pregnancy for women with, or at risk of, hypertension. Most said self-monitored readings positively affected their clinical encounters and professional roles, provided additive information on which to base decisions and enriched their relationships with pregnant people. Self-monitoring of blood pressure shifts responsibilities. Some healthcare professionals felt women having responsibility to decide on timing of monitoring and whether to act on self-monitored readings was unduly burdensome, and resulted in healthcare professionals taking additional responsibility for supporting them. CONCLUSIONS: Despite healthcare professionals' early concerns that self-monitoring of blood pressure might over-medicalise pregnancy, our analysis shows the opposite was the case when used in the care of pregnant people with, or at higher risk of, hypertension. While professionals retained ultimate clinical responsibility, they viewed self-monitoring of blood pressure as a means of sharing responsibility and empowering women to understand their bodies, to make judgements and decisions, and to contribute to their care.

Detection and Control of Pregnancy Hypertension Using Self-Monitoring of Blood Pressure With Automated Telemonitoring: Cost Analyses of the BUMP Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy hypertension continues to cause maternal and perinatal morbidity. Two linked UK randomized trials showed adding self-monitoring of blood pressure (SMBP) with automated telemonitoring to usual antenatal care did not result in earlier detection or better control of pregnancy hypertension. This article reports the trials' integrated cost analyses. METHODS: Two cost analyses. SMBP with usual care was compared with usual care alone in pregnant individuals at risk of hypertension (BUMP 1 trial [Blood Pressure Monitoring in High Risk Pregnancy to Improve the Detection and Monitoring of Hypertension], n=2441) and with hypertension (BUMP 2 trial, n=850). Clinical notes review identified participant-level antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care and these were costed. Comparisons between trial arms used means and 95% CIs. Within BUMP 2, chronic and gestational hypertension cohorts were analyzed separately. Telemonitoring system costs were reported separately. RESULTS: In BUMP 1, mean (SE) total costs with SMBP and with usual care were £7200 (£323) and £7063 (£245), respectively, mean difference (95% CI), £151 (-£633 to £936). For the BUMP 2 chronic hypertension cohort, corresponding figures were £13 384 (£1230), £12 614 (£1081), mean difference £323 (-£2904 to £3549) and for the gestational hypertension cohort were £11 456 (£901), £11 145 (£959), mean difference £41 (-£2486 to £2567). The per-person cost of telemonitoring was £6 in BUMP 1 and £29 in BUMP 2. CONCLUSIONS: SMBP was not associated with changes in the cost of health care contacts for individuals at risk of, or with, pregnancy hypertension. This is reassuring as SMBP in pregnancy is widely prevalent, particularly because of the COVID-19 pandemic. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03334149.

Cost-Effectiveness of Masked Hypertension Screening and Treatment in US Adults With Suspected Masked Hypertension: A Simulation Study.

BACKGROUND: Recent US blood pressure (BP) guidelines recommend using ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) or home BP monitoring (HBPM) to screen adults for masked hypertension. However, limited evidence exists of the expected long-term effects of screening for and treating masked hypertension. METHODS: We estimated the lifetime health and economic outcomes of screening for and treating masked hypertension using the Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) Policy Model, a validated microsimulation model. We simulated a cohort of 100,000 US adults aged ≥20 years with suspected masked hypertension (i.e., office BP 120-129/<80 mm Hg, not taking antihypertensive medications, without CVD history). We compared usual care only (i.e., no screening), usual care plus ABPM, and usual care plus HBPM. We projected total direct healthcare costs (2021 USD), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Future costs and QALYs were discounted 3% annually. Secondary outcomes included CVD events and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Relative to usual care, adding masked hypertension screening and treatment with ABPM and HBPM was projected to prevent 14.3 and 20.5 CVD events per 100,000 person-years, increase the proportion experiencing any treatment-related serious adverse events by 2.7 and 5.1 percentage points, and increase mean total costs by $1,076 and $1,046, respectively. Compared with usual care, adding ABPM was estimated to cost $85,164/QALY gained. HBPM resulted in lower QALYs than usual care due to increased treatment-related adverse events and pill-taking disutility. CONCLUSIONS: The results from our simulation study suggest screening with ABPM and treating masked hypertension is cost-effective in US adults with suspected masked hypertension.

Quality framework for remote antenatal care: qualitative study with women, healthcare professionals and system-level stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: High-quality antenatal care is important for ensuring optimal birth outcomes and reducing risks of maternal and fetal mortality and morbidity. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the usual provision of antenatal care, with much care shifting to remote forms of provision. We aimed to characterise what quality would look like for remote antenatal care from the perspectives of those who use, provide and organise it. METHODS: This UK-wide study involved interviews and an online survey inviting free-text responses with: those who were or had been pregnant since March 2020; maternity professionals and managers of maternity services and system-level stakeholders. Recruitment used network-based approaches, professional and community networks and purposively selected hospitals. Analysis of interview transcripts was based on the constant comparative method. Free-text survey responses were analysed using a coding framework developed by researchers. FINDINGS: Participants included 106 pregnant women and 105 healthcare professionals and managers/stakeholders. Analysis enabled generation of a framework of the domains of quality that appear to be most relevant to stakeholders in remote antenatal care: efficiency and timeliness; effectiveness; safety; accessibility; equity and inclusion; person-centredness and choice and continuity. Participants reported that remote care was not straightforwardly positive or negative across these domains. Care that was more transactional in nature was identified as more suitable for remote modalities, but remote care was also seen as having potential to undermine important aspects of trusting relationships and continuity, to amplify or create new forms of structural inequality and to create possible risks to safety. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers a provisional framework that can help in structuring thinking, policy and practice. By outlining the range of domains relevant to remote antenatal care, this framework is likely to be of value in guiding policy, practice and research.

New horizons in evidence-based care for older people: individual participant data meta-analysis.

Evidence-based decisions on clinical and cost-effectiveness of interventions are ideally informed by meta-analyses of intervention trial data. However, when undertaken, such meta-analyses in ageing research have typically been conducted using standard methods whereby summary (aggregate) data are extracted from published trial reports. Although meta-analysis of aggregate data can provide useful insights into the average effect of interventions within a selected trial population, it has limitations regarding robust conclusions on which subgroups of people stand to gain the greatest benefit from an intervention or are at risk of experiencing harm. Future evidence synthesis using individual participant data from ageing research trials for meta-analysis could transform understanding of the effectiveness of interventions for older people, supporting evidence-based and sustainable commissioning. A major advantage of individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) is that it enables examination of characteristics that predict treatment effects, such as frailty, disability, cognitive impairment, ethnicity, gender and other wider determinants of health. Key challenges of IPDMA relate to the complexity and resources needed for obtaining, managing and preparing datasets, requiring a meticulous approach involving experienced researchers, frequently with expertise in designing and analysing clinical trials. In anticipation of future IPDMA work in ageing research, we are establishing an international Ageing Research Trialists collective, to bring together trialists with a common focus on transforming care for older people as a shared ambition across nations.

The worldwide impact of telemedicine during COVID-19: current evidence and recommendations for the future.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine has emerged worldwide as an indispensable resource to improve the surveillance of patients, curb the spread of disease, facilitate timely identification and management of ill people, but, most importantly, guarantee the continuity of care of frail patients with multiple chronic diseases. Although during COVID-19 telemedicine has thrived, and its adoption has moved forward in many countries, important gaps still remain. Major issues to be addressed to enable large scale implementation of telemedicine include: (1) establishing adequate policies to legislate telemedicine, license healthcare operators, protect patients' privacy, and implement reimbursement plans; (2) creating and disseminating practical guidelines for the routine clinical use of telemedicine in different contexts; (3) increasing in the level of integration of telemedicine with traditional healthcare services; (4) improving healthcare professionals' and patients' awareness of and willingness to use telemedicine; and (5) overcoming inequalities among countries and population subgroups due to technological, infrastructural, and economic barriers. If all these requirements are met in the near future, remote management of patients will become an indispensable resource for the healthcare systems worldwide and will ultimately improve the management of patients and the quality of care.

Cost-Effectiveness of Antihypertensive Deprescribing in Primary Care: a Markov Modelling Study Using Data From the OPTiMISE Trial.

BACKGROUND: Deprescribing of antihypertensive medications for older patients with normal blood pressure is recommended by some clinical guidelines, where the potential harms of treatment may outweigh the benefits. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of this approach. METHODS: A Markov patient-level simulation was undertaken to model the effect of withdrawing one antihypertensive compared with usual care, over a life-time horizon. Model population characteristics were estimated using data from the OPTiMISE antihypertensive deprescribing trial, and the effects of blood pressure changes on outcomes were derived from the literature. Health-related quality of life was modeled in Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) and presented as costs per QALY gained. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, medication reduction resulted in lower costs than usual care (mean difference £185), but also lower QALYs (mean difference 0.062) per patient over a life-time horizon. Usual care was cost-effective at £2975 per QALY gained (more costly, but more effective). Medication reduction resulted more heart failure and stroke/TIA events but fewer adverse events. Medication reduction may be the preferred strategy at a willingness-to-pay of £20 000/QALY, where the baseline absolute risk of serious drug-related adverse events was ≥7.7% a year (compared with 1.7% in the base-case). CONCLUSIONS: Although there was uncertainty around many of the assumptions underpinning this model, these findings suggest that antihypertensive medication reduction should not be attempted in many older patients with controlled systolic blood pressure. For populations at high risk of adverse effects, deprescribing may be beneficial, but a targeted approach would be required in routine practice.

What would it take to meaningfully attend to ethnicity and race in health research? Learning from a trial intervention development study.

The lack of ethnic diversity in health research participation is a multi-dimensional problem. Racism and intersectional disadvantage compel us to use racial and ethnic categories to explore health, but race theorists warn that these can be essentialising and pathologising. Yet, the alternative, the pursuit of colour-blindness, can render the impact of race and ethnicity on health invisible. This paper describes the attempt to recruit an ethnically diverse sample to inform the development of an intervention for stroke patients. The study revealed deep uncertainties and tensions, which we use to re-examine our own positionalities and perspectives. We focus on the experiences of researchers and participants to show how 'usual' research practices are unwittingly exclusionary and promote 'methodological whiteness' (The British Journal of Sociology, 2017, 68, S214). Calls for greater diversity in research are frequently made, yet health research remains tainted by the use of problematic epistemological starting points, rendering participation by minoritised people uneasy. Medical sociologists, especially those engaged in clinical trials, have a vital role to play in recalibrating health research to attend to ethnicity and race. This requires us to reflect on our practices, to recognise where we are complicit in replicating social inequalities and to actively engage with communities to produce more inclusive research.

Cluster randomised controlled trial of screening for atrial fibrillation in people aged 70 years and over to reduce stroke: protocol for the pilot study for the SAFER trial.

INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia associated with 30% of strokes, as well as other cardiovascular disease, dementia and death. AF meets many criteria for screening, but there is limited evidence that AF screening reduces stroke. Consequently, no countries recommend national screening programmes for AF. The Screening for Atrial Fibrillation with ECG to Reduce stroke (SAFER) trial aims to determine whether screening for AF is effective at reducing risk of stroke. The aim of the pilot study is to assess feasibility of the main trial and inform implementation of screening and trial procedures. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: SAFER is planned to be a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) of over 100 000 participants aged 70 years and over, not on long-term anticoagulation therapy at baseline, with an average follow-up of 5 years. Participants are asked to record four traces every day for 3 weeks on a hand-held single-lead ECG device. Cardiologists remotely confirm episodes of AF identified by the device algorithm, and general practitioners follow-up with anticoagulation as appropriate. The pilot study is a cluster RCT in 36 UK general practices, randomised 2:1 control to intervention, recruiting approximately 12 600 participants. Pilot study outcomes include AF detection rate, anticoagulation uptake and other parameters to incorporate into sample size calculations for the main trial. Questionnaires sent to a sample of participants will assess impact of screening on psychological health. Process evaluation and qualitative studies will underpin implementation of screening during the main trial. An economic evaluation using the pilot data will confirm whether it is plausible that screening might be cost-effective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The London-Central Research Ethics Committee (19/LO/1597) and Confidentiality Advisory Group (19/CAG/0226) provided ethical approval. Dissemination will be via publications, patient-friendly summaries, reports and engagement with the UK National Screening Committee. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN72104369.

Home and Online Management and Evaluation of Blood Pressure (HOME BP) using a digital intervention in poorly controlled hypertension: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The HOME BP (Home and Online Management and Evaluation of Blood Pressure) trial aimed to test a digital intervention for hypertension management in primary care by combining self-monitoring of blood pressure with guided self-management. DESIGN: Unmasked randomised controlled trial with automated ascertainment of primary endpoint. SETTING: 76 general practices in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: 622 people with treated but poorly controlled hypertension (>140/90 mm Hg) and access to the internet. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised by using a minimisation algorithm to self-monitoring of blood pressure with a digital intervention (305 participants) or usual care (routine hypertension care, with appointments and drug changes made at the discretion of the general practitioner; 317 participants). The digital intervention provided feedback of blood pressure results to patients and professionals with optional lifestyle advice and motivational support. Target blood pressure for hypertension, diabetes, and people aged 80 or older followed UK national guidelines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the difference in systolic blood pressure (mean of second and third readings) after one year, adjusted for baseline blood pressure, blood pressure target, age, and practice, with multiple imputation for missing values. RESULTS: After one year, data were available from 552 participants (88.6%) with imputation for the remaining 70 participants (11.4%). Mean blood pressure dropped from 151.7/86.4 to 138.4/80.2 mm Hg in the intervention group and from 151.6/85.3 to 141.8/79.8 mm Hg in the usual care group, giving a mean difference in systolic blood pressure of -3.4 mm Hg (95% confidence interval -6.1 to -0.8 mm Hg) and a mean difference in diastolic blood pressure of -0.5 mm Hg (-1.9 to 0.9 mm Hg). Results were comparable in the complete case analysis and adverse effects were similar between groups. Within trial costs showed an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of £11 ($15, €12; 95% confidence interval £6 to £29) per mm Hg reduction. CONCLUSIONS: The HOME BP digital intervention for the management of hypertension by using self-monitored blood pressure led to better control of systolic blood pressure after one year than usual care, with low incremental costs. Implementation in primary care will require integration into clinical workflows and consideration of people who are digitally excluded. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN13790648.

Cost-Effectiveness of Initiating Pharmacological Treatment in Stage One Hypertension Based on 10-Year Cardiovascular Disease Risk: A Markov Modeling Study.

Antihypertensive drug treatment is cost-effective for adults at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, the cost-effectiveness in people with stage 1 hypertension (140-159 mm Hg systolic blood pressure) at lower CVD risk remains unclear. The objective was to establish the 10-year CVD risk threshold where initiating antihypertensive drug treatment for primary prevention in adults, with stage 1 hypertension, becomes cost-effective. A lifetime horizon Markov model compared antihypertensive drug versus no treatment, using a UK National Health Service perspective. Analyses were conducted for groups ranging between 5% and 20% 10-year CVD risk. Health states included no CVD event, CVD and non-CVD death, and 6 nonfatal CVD morbidities. Interventions were compared using cost-per-quality-adjusted life-years. The base-case age was 60, with analyses repeated between ages 40 and 75. The model was run separately for men and women, and threshold CVD risk assessed against the minimum plausible risk for each group. Treatment was cost-effective at 10% CVD risk for both sexes (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio £10 017/quality-adjusted life-year [$14 542] men, £8635/QALY [$12 536] women) in the base-case. The result was robust in probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses but was sensitive to treatment effects. Treatment was cost-effective for men regardless of age and women aged >60. Initiating treatment in stage 1 hypertension for people aged 60 is cost-effective regardless of 10-year CVD risk. For other age groups, it is also cost-effective to treat regardless of risk, except in younger women.

Options for the diagnosis of high blood pressure in primary care: a systematic review and economic model.

The 2011 NICE hypertension guideline (CG127) undertook a systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of different blood pressure (BP) assessment methods to confirm the diagnosis of hypertension. The guideline also undertook a cost-utility analysis exploring the cost-effectiveness of the monitoring methods. A new systematic review was undertaken as part of the 2019 NICE hypertension guideline update (NG136). BP monitoring methods compared included Ambulatory BP, Clinic BP and Home BP. Ambulatory BP was the reference standard. The economic model from the 2011 guideline was updated with this new accuracy data. Home BP was more sensitive and specific than Clinic BP. Specificity improved more than sensitivity since the 2011 review. A higher specificity translates into fewer people requiring unnecessary treatment. A key interest was to compare Home BP and Ambulatory BP, and whether any improvement in Home BP accuracy would change the model results. Ambulatory BP remained the most cost-effective option in all age and sex subgroups. In all subgroups, Ambulatory BP was associated with lower costs than Clinic BP and Home BP. In all except one subgroup (females aged 40), Ambulatory BP was dominant. However, Ambulatory BP remained the most cost-effective option in 40-year-old females as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for Home BP versus Ambulatory BP was above the NICE £20,000 threshold. The new systematic review showed that the accuracy of both Clinic BP and Home BP has increased. However, Ambulatory BP remains the most cost-effective option to confirm a diagnosis of hypertension in all subgroups evaluated.

Blood pressure monitoring in high-risk pregnancy to improve the detection and monitoring of hypertension (the BUMP 1 and 2 trials): protocol for two linked randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) in pregnancy could improve the detection and management of pregnancy hypertension, while also empowering and engaging women in their own care. Two linked trials aim to evaluate whether BP self-monitoring in pregnancy improves the detection of raised BP during higher risk pregnancies (BUMP 1) and whether self-monitoring reduces systolic BP during hypertensive pregnancy (BUMP 2). METHODS AND ANALYSES: Both are multicentre, non-masked, parallel group, randomised controlled trials. Participants will be randomised to self-monitoring with telemonitoring or usual care. BUMP 1 will recruit a minimum of 2262 pregnant women at higher risk of pregnancy hypertension and BUMP 2 will recruit a minimum of 512 pregnant women with either gestational or chronic hypertension. The BUMP 1 primary outcome is the time to the first recording of raised BP by a healthcare professional. The BUMP 2 primary outcome is mean systolic BP between baseline and delivery recorded by healthcare professionals. Other outcomes will include maternal and perinatal outcomes, quality of life and adverse events. An economic evaluation of BP self-monitoring in addition to usual care compared with usual care alone will be assessed across both study populations within trial and with modelling to estimate long-term cost-effectiveness. A linked process evaluation will combine quantitative and qualitative data to examine how BP self-monitoring in pregnancy is implemented and accepted in both daily life and routine clinical practice. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trials have been approved by a Research Ethics Committee (17/WM/0241) and relevant research authorities. They will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences. If shown to be effective, BP self-monitoring would be applicable to a large population of pregnant women. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03334149.

Phenotypes of masked hypertension: Isolated ambulatory, isolated home and dual masked hypertension.

OBJECTIVES: Masked hypertension (MH) is defined as normal office blood pressure (OBP) and elevated ambulatory (ABP) or home blood pressure (HBP). This study assessed MH identified by each of these two methods. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data in treated and untreated adults from Greece, Finland and UK who had OBP, HBP and 24-h ABP measurements was performed. Dual MH was defined as normal OBP and elevated HBP and ABP, isolated ambulatory MH as normal OBP and HBP and elevated ABP and isolated home MH as normal OBP and ABP and elevated HBP. RESULTS: Of 1971 participants analyzed, 445 (23%) had MH on ABP and/or HBP (age 57.1 ±â€Š10.8 years, men 55%, treated 49%). Among participants with any MH, 215 had dual MH (48%), 132 isolated ambulatory MH (30%) and 98 isolated home MH (22%). Moreover, 55% had high-normal, 35% normal and 10% optimal OBP. In logistic regression analysis isolated ambulatory MH was predicted by younger age (OR 0.35, P < 0.01 per 10 years increase), whereas isolated home MH was predicted by older age (OR 2.05, P < 0.01 per 10 years increase). CONCLUSION: Masked hypertension diagnosed by ABP and not HBP monitoring or the reverse is not uncommon. Age appears to be the most important determinant of isolated ambulatory or home MH, with the former being more common in younger participants and the latter in older ones. Only half of participants with MH have high-normal OBP, whereas the rest have lower levels.

Mixed-methods feasibility study of blood pressure self-screening for hypertension detection.

OBJECTIVE: 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. DESIGN: A concurrent mixed-methods feasibility study incorporating observational and qualitative interview components. SETTING: Two English general practitioner (GP) surgeries. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients registered at participating surgeries. Staff working at these sites. INTERVENTIONS: 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. OUTCOME MEASURES: (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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Telemonitoring and Self-Monitoring of Blood Pressure for Antihypertensive Titration in Primary Care (TASMINH4).

The use of self-monitoring of blood pressure, with or without telemonitoring, to guide therapy decisions by physicians for patients with hypertension has been recently demonstrated to reduce blood pressure compared with using clinic monitoring (usual care). However, both the cost-effectiveness of these strategies compared with usual care, and whether the additional benefit of telemonitoring compared with self-monitoring alone could be considered value for money, are unknown. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of physician titration of antihypertensive medication using self-monitored blood pressure, with or without telemonitoring, to make hypertension treatment decisions in primary care compared with usual care. A Markov patient-level simulation model was developed taking a UK Health Service/Personal Social Services perspective. The model adopted a lifetime time horizon with 6-month time cycles. At a willingness to pay of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life year, self-monitoring plus telemonitoring was the most cost-effective strategy (£17 424 per quality-adjusted life year gained) compared with usual care or self-monitoring alone (posting the results to the physician). However, deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that self-monitoring alone became the most cost-effective option when changing key assumptions around long-term effectiveness and time horizon. Overall, probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that self-monitoring regardless of transmission modality was likely to be cost-effective compared with usual care (89% probability of cost-effectiveness at £20 000/quality-adjusted life year), with high uncertainty as to whether telemonitoring or self-monitoring alone was the most cost-effective option. Self-monitoring in clinical practice is cost-effective and likely to lead to reduced cardiovascular mortality and morbidity.

The impact of status and social context on health service co-design: an example from a collaborative improvement initiative in UK primary care.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, collaborative participatory methods requiring open and honest interaction between a range of stakeholders are being used to improve health service delivery. To be successful these methodologies must incorporate perspectives from a range of patients and staff. Yet, if unaccounted for, the complex relationships amongst staff groups and between patients and providers can affect the veracity and applicability of co-designed solutions. METHODS: Two focus groups convened to discuss suggestions for the improvement of blood testing and result communication in primary care. The groups were mixed of patients and staff in various combinations drawn from the four participating study practices. Here we present a secondary mixed-method analysis of the interaction between participants in both groups using sociogrammatic and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Despite a similar mix of practice staff and patients the two groups produced contrasting discussions, seemingly influenced by status and social context. The sociograms provided a useful insight into the flow of conversation and highlighted the dominance of the senior staff member in the first focus group. Within the three key themes of social context, the alliances formed between participants and the fluidity of the roles assumed manifested differently between groups apparently dictated by the different profile of the participants of each. CONCLUSIONS: For primary care service improvement attention must be paid to the background of participants when convening collaborative service improvement groups as status and imported hierarchies can have significant connotations for the data produced.

Home blood pressure monitoring in the 21st century.

Home blood pressure monitoring provides multiple measurements in the usual environment of each individual, allows the detection of intermediate hypertension phenotypes (white-coat and masked hypertension), and appears to have superior prognostic value compared to the conventional office blood pressure measurements. Accumulating evidence suggests that home blood pressure monitoring improves long-term hypertension control rates. Moreover, it is widely available, relatively inexpensive, and well accepted by patients. Thus, current guidelines recommend home blood pressure monitoring as an essential method for the evaluation of almost all untreated and treated patients with suspected or treated hypertension. Validated automated upper-arm cuff devices with automated storage and averaging of readings should be used. The home blood pressure monitoring schedule for 4 to 7 days with exclusion of the first day (12-24 readings) should be averaged to provide values for decision making.

The Importance of Model Structure in the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Primary Care Interventions for the Management of Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Management of hypertension can lead to significant reductions in blood pressure, thereby reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease. Modeling the course of cardiovascular disease is not without complications, and uncertainty surrounding the structure of a model will almost always arise once a choice of a model structure is defined. OBJECTIVES: To provide a practical illustration of the impact on the results of cost-effectiveness of changing or adapting model structures in a previously published cost-utility analysis of a primary care intervention for the management of hypertension Targets and Self-Management for the Control of Blood Pressure in Stroke and at Risk Groups (TASMIN-SR). METHODS: The case study assessed the structural uncertainty arising from model structure and from the exclusion of secondary events. Four alternative model structures were implemented. Long-term cost-effectiveness was estimated and the results compared with those from the TASMIN-SR model. RESULTS: The main cost-effectiveness results obtained in the TASMIN-SR study did not change with the implementation of alternative model structures. Choice of model type was limited to a cohort Markov model, and because of the lack of epidemiological data, only model 4 captured structural uncertainty arising from the exclusion of secondary events in the case study model. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that the main conclusions drawn from the TASMIN-SR model of cost-effectiveness were robust to changes in model structure and the inclusion of secondary events. Even though one of the models produced results that were different to those of TASMIN-SR, the fact that the main conclusions were identical suggests that a more parsimonious model may have sufficed.

Predicting Out-of-Office Blood Pressure in the Clinic for the Diagnosis of Hypertension in Primary Care: An Economic Evaluation.

Clinical guidelines in the United States and United Kingdom recommend that individuals with suspected hypertension should have ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring to confirm the diagnosis. This approach reduces misdiagnosis because of white coat hypertension but will not identify people with masked hypertension who may benefit from treatment. The Predicting Out-of-Office Blood Pressure (PROOF-BP) algorithm predicts masked and white coat hypertension based on patient characteristics and clinic BP, improving the accuracy of diagnosis while limiting subsequent ambulatory BP monitoring. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of using this tool in diagnosing hypertension in primary care. A Markov cost-utility cohort model was developed to compare diagnostic strategies: the PROOF-BP approach, including those with clinic BP ≥130/80 mm Hg who receive ambulatory BP monitoring as guided by the algorithm, compared with current standard diagnostic strategies including those with clinic BP ≥140/90 mm Hg combined with further monitoring (ambulatory BP monitoring as reference, clinic, and home monitoring also assessed). The model adopted a lifetime horizon with a 3-month time cycle, taking a UK Health Service/Personal Social Services perspective. The PROOF-BP algorithm was cost-effective in screening all patients with clinic BP ≥130/80 mm Hg compared with current strategies that only screen those with clinic BP ≥140/90 mm Hg, provided healthcare providers were willing to pay up to £20 000 ($26 000)/quality-adjusted life year gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses supported the base-case findings. The PROOF-BP algorithm seems to be cost-effective compared with the conventional BP diagnostic options in primary care. Its use in clinical practice is likely to lead to reduced cardiovascular disease, death, and disability.