Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 270

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 103 of the 103 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Team-Based Care and Improved Blood Pressure Control

Open access
Proia, Krista K., Thota, Anilkrishna B., Njie, Gibril J., Finnie, Ramona K.C., Hopkins, David P., Mukhtar, Qaiser, Pronk, Nicolaas P., Zeigler, Donald, Kottke, Thomas E., Rask, Kimberly J., Lackland, Daniel T., Brooks, Joy F., Braun, Lynne T., Cooksey, Tonya·2014·American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Abstract

Context Uncontrolled hypertension remains a widely prevalent cardiovascular risk factor in the U.S. team-based care, established by adding new staff or changing the roles of existing staff such as nurses and pharmacists to work with a primary care provider and the patient. Team-based care has the potential to improve the quality of hypertension management. The goal of this Community Guide systematic review was to examine the effectiveness of team-based care in improving blood pressure (BP) outcomes. Evidence acquisition An existing systematic review (search period, January 1980–July 2003) assessing team-based care for BP control was supplemented with a Community Guide update (January 2003–May 2012). For the Community Guide update, two reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed quality of eligible studies. Evidence synthesis Twenty-eight studies in the prior review (1980–2003) and an additional 52 studies from the Community Guide update (2003–2012) qualified for inclusion. Results from both bodies of evidence suggest that team-based care is effective in improving BP outcomes. From the update, the proportion of patients with controlled BP improved (median increase=12 percentage points); systolic BP decreased (median reduction=5.4 mmHg); and diastolic BP also decreased (median reduction=1.8 mmHg). Conclusions Team-based care increased the proportion of people with controlled BP and reduced both systolic and diastolic BP, especially when pharmacists and nurses were part of the team. Findings are applicable to a range of U.S. settings and population groups. Implementation of this multidisciplinary approach will require health system–level organizational changes and could be an important element of the medical home.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.amepre.2014.03.004

Cites

103 of 103 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 103 references

Cited by

See all 270

Metadata

Authors
Proia, K. K., Thota, A. B., Njie, G. J., Finnie, R. K. C., Hopkins, D. P., Mukhtar, Q., Pronk, N. P., Zeigler, D., Kottke, T. E., Rask, K. J., Lackland, D. T., Brooks, J. F., Braun, L. T., & Cooksey, T.
Venue
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-07
Volume
47
Issue
1
Pages
86-99
ISSN
0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1518015224
Cited by
270
References
103
FWCI
11.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Team-Based Care and Improved Blood Pressure Control. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.amepre.2014.03.004
The paper
Proia, K. K., Thota, A. B., Njie, G. J., Finnie, R. K. C., Hopkins, D. P., Mukhtar, Q., Pronk, N. P., Zeigler, D., Kottke, T. E., Rask, K. J., Lackland, D. T., Brooks, J. F., Braun, L. T., & Cooksey, T. (2014). Team-Based Care and Improved Blood Pressure Control. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2014.03.004

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.