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.

Effect of Self-monitoring of Blood Pressure on Blood Pressure Control in Pregnant Individuals With Chronic or Gestational Hypertension: The BUMP 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Inadequate management of elevated blood pressure is a significant contributing factor to maternal deaths. The role of blood pressure self-monitoring in pregnancy in improving clinical outcomes for the pregnant individual and infant is unclear. Objective: To evaluate the effect of blood pressure self-monitoring, compared with usual care alone, on blood pressure control and other related maternal and infant outcomes, in individuals with pregnancy hypertension. Design, Setting, and Participants: Unblinded, randomized clinical trial that recruited between November 2018 and September 2019 in 15 hospital maternity units in England. Individuals with chronic hypertension (enrolled up to 37 weeks' gestation) or with gestational hypertension (enrolled between 20 and 37 weeks' gestation). Final follow-up was in May 2020. Interventions: Participants were randomized to either blood pressure self-monitoring using a validated monitor and a secure telemonitoring system in addition to usual care (n = 430) or to usual care alone (n = 420). Usual care comprised blood pressure measured by health care professionals at regular antenatal clinics. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary maternal outcome was the difference in mean systolic blood pressure recorded by health care professionals between randomization and birth. Results: Among 454 participants with chronic hypertension (mean age, 36 years; mean gestation at entry, 20 weeks) and 396 with gestational hypertension (mean age, 34 years; mean gestation at entry, 33 weeks) who were randomized, primary outcome data were available from 444 (97.8%) and 377 (95.2%), respectively. In the chronic hypertension cohort, there was no statistically significant difference in mean systolic blood pressure for the self-monitoring groups vs the usual care group (133.8 mm Hg vs 133.6 mm Hg, respectively; adjusted mean difference, 0.03 mm Hg [95% CI, -1.73 to 1.79]). In the gestational hypertension cohort, there was also no significant difference in mean systolic blood pressure (137.6 mm Hg compared with 137.2 mm Hg; adjusted mean difference, -0.03 mm Hg [95% CI, -2.29 to 2.24]). There were 8 serious adverse events in the self-monitoring group (4 in each cohort) and 3 in the usual care group (2 in the chronic hypertension cohort and 1 in the gestational hypertension cohort). Conclusions and Relevance: Among pregnant individuals with chronic or gestational hypertension, blood pressure self-monitoring with telemonitoring, compared with usual care, did not lead to significantly improved clinic-based blood pressure control. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03334149.

Effect of Self-monitoring of Blood Pressure on Diagnosis of Hypertension During Higher-Risk Pregnancy: The BUMP 1 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Inadequate management of elevated blood pressure (BP) is a significant contributing factor to maternal deaths. Self-monitoring of BP in the general population has been shown to improve the diagnosis and management of hypertension; however, little is known about its use in pregnancy. Objective: To determine whether self-monitoring of BP in higher-risk pregnancies leads to earlier detection of pregnancy hypertension. Design, Setting, and Participants: Unblinded, randomized clinical trial that included 2441 pregnant individuals at higher risk of preeclampsia and recruited at a mean of 20 weeks' gestation from 15 hospital maternity units in England between November 2018 and October 2019. Final follow-up was completed in April 2020. Interventions: Participating individuals were randomized to either BP self-monitoring with telemonitoring (n = 1223) plus usual care or usual antenatal care alone (n = 1218) without access to telemonitored BP. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to first recorded hypertension measured by a health care professional. Results: Among 2441 participants who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 33 [5.6] years; mean gestation, 20 [1.6] weeks), 2346 (96%) completed the trial. The time from randomization to clinic recording of hypertension was not significantly different between individuals in the self-monitoring group (mean [SD], 104.3 [32.6] days) vs in the usual care group (mean [SD], 106.2 [32.0] days) (mean difference, -1.6 days [95% CI, -8.1 to 4.9]; P = .64). Eighteen serious adverse events were reported during the trial with none judged as related to the intervention (12 [1%] in the self-monitoring group vs 6 [0.5%] in the usual care group). Conclusions and Relevance: Among pregnant individuals at higher risk of preeclampsia, blood pressure self-monitoring with telemonitoring, compared with usual care, did not lead to significantly earlier clinic-based detection of hypertension. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03334149.

Cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study of self-testing for proteinuria during hypertensive pregnancies: The UDIP study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of self-testing for proteinuria during pregnancy. DESIGN: Diagnostic accuracy study. SETTING: Antenatal clinics, maternity assessment units and inpatient wards at three hospital sites. POPULATION OR SAMPLE: 345 pregnant women. METHODS: Pregnant women self-tested in-clinic for urinary protein using visually read dipsticks with samples then sent for laboratory estimation of the spot protein-creatinine ratio (PCR) (primary reference test). Secondary index tests included testing by antenatal healthcare professionals and an automated colorimetric reader. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value and likelihood ratios were calculated for self-testing (primary index test) along with healthcare professional and colorimetric testing compared to the primary reference test (PCR). RESULTS: 335/345 (97%) had sufficient data to be included in the analysis. Self-testing had a sensitivity of 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.79) and a specificity of 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.92) compared to PCR. Sensitivity and specificity of testing by healthcare professionals and the colorimetric reader were similar: sensitivity 0.73 (95% CI 0.64-0.80) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.69-0.85), respectively; specificity 0.88 (95% CI 0.82-0.92) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.78-0.88), respectively. CONCLUSION: Pregnant women can visually read a dipstick for urinary protein with similar accuracy to antenatal healthcare professionals. Automated colorimetric testing was not significantly different, in contrast to some previous studies. Self-testing has the potential to form part of a self-monitoring regime in pregnancy.

Current prevalence of self-monitoring of blood pressure during pregnancy: the BUMP Survey.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the current prevalence of, and attitudes to, self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) during pregnancy. METHODS: Five thousand, five hundred and fifty-five pregnant women from antenatal clinics in 16 hospitals in England were invited to complete a survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of women currently BP self-monitoring. Secondary outcomes included self-monitoring schedules and women's interactions with clinicians regarding self-monitoring. Population characteristics including risk factors for preeclampsia, ethnicity and deprivation level were considered. RESULTS: Completed surveys were received and analysed from 5181 pregnant women (93% response rate). Comparison to hospital demographic data suggests that respondents were representative of the UK population. Nine hundred and eighty-three of 5181 (19%) women were currently self-monitoring their BP, constituting 189 of 389 (49%) hypertensive women and 794 of 4792 (17%) normotensive women. However, only 482 of 983 (49%) reported ever sharing this information with antenatal care teams. Of those who self-monitored, 68% (668/983) were able to provide a previous BP reading, compared with 1% (67/5181) of those who did not self-monitor. CONCLUSION: Many women are now choosing to self-monitor their BP during pregnancy and clinicians should enquire about this proactively and consider providing better information on BP monitoring. Those who self-monitor appear to have better knowledge about their blood pressure. If these findings were replicated nationwide, around 125 000 pregnant women would be currently self-monitoring BP in the UK, yet only half of these women may communicate their readings to their antenatal care teams, suggesting a missed opportunity for enhanced care. Current trials will make the place of self-monitoring in pregnancy clearer.

Implementing self-management: a mixed methods study of women's experiences of a postpartum hypertension intervention (SNAP-HT).

BACKGROUND: Self-management strategies are effective in a number of medical conditions; however, implementation studies have demonstrated adoption into clinical practice can be problematic. The process of implementation was explored during a pilot randomised controlled trial evaluating postpartum blood pressure self-management in women with medicated hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. METHODS: A mixed methods study using semi-structured interviews with a qualitative and a scored (quantitative) component were undertaken as part of a pilot randomised controlled trial (SNAP-HT) in postnatal women with medicated gestational hypertension or pre-eclampsia. Women were randomised to usual care or blood pressure self-management. Self-management entailed daily home blood pressure monitoring and automated medication reduction via telemonitoring. Women from both groups optionally consented to participate in audio-recorded interviews at 4 weeks and 6 months postpartum. Interview questions were developed to explore the proposed benefits of self-management and the constructs of normalisation process theory. Participants provided a score (Likert scale 1-5) for each question and were encouraged to expand upon these answers through further discussion. The interviews were transcribed and analysed using the framework approach. RESULTS: Sixty-eight women, 34 from each randomised group, completed at least one audio-recorded interview. Several overarching themes emerged from analysis of 126 interview transcripts: control; convenience; confidence, communication and knowledge; concern; constraints; and components of the intervention. In the scored component of the analysis, both groups reported feeling more in control of their condition postpartum compared to during pregnancy, more so in those self-managing at both 4 weeks and 6 months: adjusted differences 0.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2 to 1.1) and 0.7 (95% CI 0.3 to 1.2) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Interviews and quantitative data showed that self-management enhanced women's sense of control and improved their blood pressure-related anxiety. Prior to taking part, a few women anticipated that home monitoring might increase anxiety, but stated that it had the opposite effect. Self-management was perceived as more flexible and reactive and as enabling more targeted down-titration of medication. These data provide considerable support for blood pressure self-management postpartum and reinforce the effectiveness of the intervention used in this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02333240. Prospectively registered on 7 January 2015.

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.

A randomised controlled trial of blood pressure self-monitoring in the management of hypertensive pregnancy. OPTIMUM-BP: A feasibility trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of a blood pressure self-monitoring intervention for managing pregnancy hypertension. STUDY DESIGN: OPTIMUM-BP was an unmasked randomised controlled trial comparing a self-monitoring of blood pressure (SMBP) intervention versus usual care for the management of pregnancy hypertension. Women with chronic (CH) or gestational hypertension (GH) from 4 UK centres were randomised (2:1) intervention to control. Self-monitoring involved daily home blood pressure (BP) measurements, with recording via study diary or telemonitoring. Clinicians were invited to use the home readings in clinical and antihypertensive titration decisions. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcomes were recruitment, retention, adherence and persistence with the intervention. RESULTS: Women from four UK centres were randomised: 158/222 (71%) of those approached agreed, comprising: 86 women with chronic hypertension (55 SMBP, 31 control) and 72 with gestational hypertension (49 SMBP, 23 control) of whom outcome data were available from 154 (97%) and were included in the analysis. The median (IQR) number of days with home BP readings per week were 5.5 (3.1-6.5) for those with chronic hypertension and 6.1 (4.5-6.7) with gestational hypertension. Participants persisted with the intervention for 80% or more of their time from enrolment until delivery in 86% (43/50) and 76% (38/49) of those with chronic and gestational hypertension respectively. Recorded clinic and study BPs were similar for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first randomised investigation of BP self-monitoring for the management of pregnancy hypertension and indicates that a large RCT would be feasible.

Intervention planning and modification of the BUMP intervention: a digital intervention for the early detection of raised blood pressure in pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, particularly pre-eclampsia, pose a substantial health risk for both maternal and foetal outcomes. The BUMP (Blood Pressure Self-Monitoring in Pregnancy) interventions are being tested in a trial. They aim to facilitate the early detection of raised blood pressure through self-monitoring. This article outlines how the self-monitoring interventions in the BUMP trial were developed and modified using the person-based approach to promote engagement and adherence. METHODS: Key behavioural challenges associated with blood pressure self-monitoring in pregnancy were identified through synthesising qualitative pilot data and existing evidence, which informed guiding principles for the development process. Social cognitive theory was identified as an appropriate theoretical framework. A testable logic model was developed to illustrate the hypothesised processes of change associated with the intervention. Iterative qualitative feedback from women and staff informed modifications to the participant materials. RESULTS: The evidence synthesis suggested women face challenges integrating self-monitoring into their lives and that adherence is challenging at certain time points in pregnancy (for example, starting maternity leave). Intervention modification included strategies to address adherence but also focussed on modifying outcome expectancies, by providing messages explaining pre-eclampsia and outlining the potential benefits of self-monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: With an in-depth understanding of the target population, several methods and approaches to plan and develop interventions specifically relevant to pregnant women were successfully integrated, to address barriers to behaviour change while ensuring they are easy to engage with, persuasive and acceptable.

How Do Home and Clinic Blood Pressure Readings Compare in Pregnancy?

Hypertensive disorders during pregnancy result in substantial maternal morbidity and are a leading cause of maternal deaths worldwide. Self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) might improve the detection and management of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, but few data are available, including regarding appropriate thresholds. This systematic review and individual patient data analysis aimed to assess the current evidence on differences between clinic and self-monitored BP through pregnancy. MEDLINE and 10 other electronic databases were searched for articles published up to and including July 2016 using a strategy designed to capture all the literature on self-monitoring of BP during pregnancy. Investigators of included studies were contacted requesting individual patient data: self-monitored and clinic BP and demographic data. Twenty-one studies that utilized self-monitoring of BP during pregnancy were identified. Individual patient data from self-monitored and clinic readings were available from 7 plus 1 unpublished articles (8 studies; n=758) and 2 further studies published summary data. Analysis revealed a mean self-monitoring clinic difference of ≤1.2 mm Hg systolic BP throughout pregnancy although there was significant heterogeneity (difference in means, I2 >80% throughout pregnancy). Although the overall population difference was small, levels of white coat hypertension were high, particularly toward the end of pregnancy. The available literature includes no evidence of a systematic difference between self and clinic readings, suggesting that appropriate treatment and diagnostic thresholds for self-monitoring during pregnancy would be equivalent to standard clinic thresholds.

The feasibility and acceptability of self-testing for proteinuria during pregnancy: A mixed methods approach.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate feasibility and acceptability of self-testing for proteinuria during pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: Mixed methods approach which included: an accuracy study where pregnant women (n = 100) and healthcare professionals (n = 96) tested seven synthetic protein samples and completed a questionnaire, a feasibility study where pregnant women who were self-monitoring their blood pressure were asked to self-test for proteinuria (n = 30), and an online questionnaire about women's experiences of self-testing (n = 200). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity of testing and questionnaire results. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the accuracy of synthetic sample testing by pregnant women (sensitivity 0.81 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.78-0.85), specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.91-0.95)) and healthcare professionals: (sensitivity 0.83 (95% CI 0.79-0.86), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.90-0.94)). Automated readers had significantly better sensitivity (0.94 (0.91-0.97) (p ≤ .001 in each case), but worse specificity 0.78 (0.69-0.85). Similar results were gained using self-tested urine samples compared to staff-testing using a reference standard of laboratory urine protein-creatinine ratio (uPCR). Women who completed the online survey with experience of self-testing (n = 39, 20%) generally found it easy, and with support from healthcare professionals felt it improved involvement in their care and reduced anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Self-testing for proteinuria by pregnant women had similar accuracy to healthcare professional testing and was acceptable to both groups. Self-testing of urine combined with self-monitoring of blood pressure could provide a useful adjunct to clinic-based surveillance for the detection of pre-eclampsia. Such novel strategies warrant further research.

Blood pressure self-monitoring in pregnancy: examining feasibility in a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Raised blood pressure (BP) affects approximately 10% of pregnancies worldwide, and a high proportion of affected women develop pre-eclampsia. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of self-monitoring of BP in pregnancy in women at higher risk of pre-eclampsia. METHODS: This prospective cohort study of self-monitoring BP in pregnancy was carried out in two hospital trusts in Birmingham and Oxford and thirteen primary care practices in Oxfordshire. Eligible women were those defined by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines as at higher risk of pre-eclampsia. A total of 201 participants were recruited between 12 and 16 weeks of pregnancy and were asked to take two BP readings twice daily three times a week through their pregnancy. Primary outcomes were recruitment, retention and persistence of self-monitoring. Study recruitment and retention were analysed with descriptive statistics. Survival analysis was used to evaluate the persistence of self-monitoring and the performance of self-monitoring in the early detection of gestational hypertension, compared to clinic BP monitoring. Secondary outcomes were the mean clinic and self-monitored BP readings and the performance of self-monitoring in the detection of gestational hypertension and pre-eclampsia compared to clinic BP. RESULTS: Of 201 women recruited, 161 (80%) remained in the study at 36 weeks or to the end of their pregnancy, 162 (81%) provided any home readings suitable for analysis, 148 (74%) continued to self-monitor at 20 weeks and 107 (66%) at 36 weeks. Self-monitored readings were similar in value to contemporaneous matched clinic readings for both systolic and diastolic BP. Of the 23 who developed gestational hypertension or pre-eclampsia and self-monitored, 9 (39%) had a raised home BP prior to a raised clinic BP. CONCLUSIONS: Self-monitoring of BP in pregnancy is feasible and has potential to be useful in the early detection of gestational hypertensive disorders but maintaining self-monitoring throughout pregnancy requires support and probably enhanced training.

Blood pressure self-monitoring in pregnancy (BuMP) feasibility study; a qualitative analysis of women's experiences of self-monitoring.

BACKGROUND: Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy are a leading cause of maternal and fetal morbidity worldwide. Raised blood pressure (BP) affects 10% of pregnancies worldwide, of which almost half develop pre-eclampsia. The proportion of pregnant women who have risk factors for pre-eclampsia (such as pre-existing hypertension, obesity and advanced maternal age) is increasing. Pre-eclampsia can manifest itself before women experience symptoms and can develop between antenatal visits. Incentives to improve early detection of gestational hypertensive disorders are therefore strong and self-monitoring of blood pressure (SMBP) in pregnancy might be one means to achieve this, whilst improving women's involvement in antenatal care. The Blood Pressure Self-Monitoring in Pregnancy (BuMP) study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of SMBP in pregnancy. METHODS: To understand women's experiences of SMBP during pregnancy, we undertook a qualitative study embedded within the BuMP observational feasibility study. Women who were at higher risk of developing hypertension and/or pre-eclampsia were invited to take part in a study using SMBP and also invited to take part in an interview. Semi-structured interviews were conducted at the women's homes in Oxfordshire and Birmingham with women who were self-monitoring their BP as part of the BuMP feasibility study in 2014. Interviews were conducted by a qualitative researcher and transcribed verbatim. A framework approach was used for analysis. RESULTS: Fifteen women agreed to be interviewed. Respondents reported general willingness to engage with monitoring their own BP, feeling that it could reduce anxiety around their health during pregnancy, particularly if they had previous experience of raised BP or pre-eclampsia. They felt able to incorporate self-monitoring into their weekly routines, although this was harder post-partum. Self-monitoring of BP made them more aware of the risks of hypertension and pre-eclampsia in pregnancy. Feelings of reassurance and empowerment were commonly reported by the women in our sample. CONCLUSIONS: SMBP in pregnancy was both acceptable and feasible to women in this small pilot study.

Is self monitoring of blood pressure in pregnancy safe and effective?

Guidelines encourage the use of self monitoring of blood pressure in pregnancy, and research suggests that women prefer it. But HODGKINSON AND COLLEAGUES: explain that our enthusiasm may run ahead of the evidence and call for more research before it is routinely adopted.