Impact of Computerized Decision Support on Blood Pressure Management and Control: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Open accessAbstract
Background We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial to examine the effectiveness of computerized decision support (CDS) designed to improve hypertension care and outcomes in a racially diverse sample of primary care patients.Methods We randomized 2,027 adult patients receiving hypertension care in 14 primary care practices to either 18 months of their physicians receiving CDS for each hypertensive patient or to usual care without computerized support for the control group. We assessed prescribing of guideline-recommended drug therapy and levels of blood pressure control for patients in each group and examined if the effects of the intervention differed by patients' race/ethnicity using interaction terms.Measurements and main results Rates of blood pressure control were 42% at baseline and 46% at the outcome visit with no significant differences between groups. After adjustment for patients' demographic and clinical characteristics, number of prior visits, and levels of baseline blood pressure control, there were no differences between intervention groups in the odds of outcome blood pressure control. The use of CDS to providers significantly improved Joint National Committee (JNC) guideline adherent medication prescribing compared to usual care (7% versus 5%, P < 0.001); the effects of the intervention remained after multivariable adjustment (odds ratio [OR] 1.39 [CI, 1.13-1.72]) and the effects of the intervention did not differ by patients' race and ethnicity.Conclusions CDS improved appropriate medication prescribing with no improvement in disparities in care and overall blood pressure control. Future work focusing on improvement of these interventions and the study of other practical interventions to reduce disparities in hypertension-related outcomes is needed.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A variety of randomized controlled trials clearly demonstrate that CDS can improve care.
“However, a variety of randomized controlled trials clearly demonstrate that CDS can improve care.5 6”
From Overrides of medication-related clinical decision support alerts in outpatients (2014) · cites this paper as [5]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 37 · Cited by 93
- Authors
- Hicks, L. S., Sequist, T. D., Ayanian, J. Z., Shaykevich, S., Fairchild, D. G., Orav, E. J., & Bates, D. W.
- Affiliations
- Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hicks, LeRoi S.
- Venue
- Journal of General Internal Medicine
- Published
- 2008-03-29
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 429-441
- ISSN
- 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
- 1525-1497
- PMC
- PMC2359515
- OpenAlex
- W2082950380
- Cited by
- 93
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 16.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (U18 HS011046, 3U18HS11046)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Keywords
- decision support system, hypertension, blood pressure control, guideline adherence, racial and ethnic disparities, primary care, physician prescribing behavior
- MeSH terms
- Academic Medical Centers, Aged, Antihypertensive Agents, Black or African American, Blood Pressure, Community Health Centers, Female, Hispanic or Latino, Hospitals, Group Practice, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Middle Aged, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Primary Health Care, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, White People, Healthcare Disparities
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review