Cited by 121Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Self-monitoring blood pressure in hypertension, patient and provider perspectives: A systematic review and thematic synthesis

Open access
Fletcher, Benjamin R., Hinton, Lisa, Hartmann-Boyce, Jamie, Roberts, Nia W., Bobrovitz, Niklas, McManus, Richard J.·2016·Patient Education and Counseling

Abstract

Objective To systematically review the qualitative evidence for patient and clinician perspectives on self-measurement of blood pressure (SMBP) in the management of hypertension focussing on: how SMBP was discussed in consultations; the motivation for patients to start self-monitoring; how both patients and clinicians used SMBP to promote behaviour change; perceived barriers and facilitators to SMBP use by patients and clinicians. Methods Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cinahl, Web of Science, SocAbs were searched for empirical qualitative studies that met the review objectives. Reporting of included studies was assessed using the COREQ framework. All relevant data from results/findings sections of included reports were extracted, coded inductively using thematic analysis, and overarching themes across studies were abstracted. Results Twelve studies were included in the synthesis involving 358 patients and 91 clinicians. Three major themes are presented: interpretation, attribution and action; convenience and reassurance v anxiety and uncertainty; and patient autonomy and empowerment improve patient-clinician alliance. Conclusions SMBP was successful facilitating the interaction in consultations about hypertension, bridging a potential gap in the traditional patient-clinician relationship. Practice implications Uncertainty could be reduced by providing information specifically about how to interpret SMBP, what variation is acceptable, adjustment for home-clinic difference, and for patients what they should be concerned about and how to act.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pec.2015.08.026

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 29 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fletcher, B. R., Hinton, L., Hartmann-Boyce, J., Roberts, N. W., Bobrovitz, N., & McManus, R. J.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Fletcher, Benjamin R.
Venue
Patient Education and Counseling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-02
Volume
99
Issue
2
Pages
210-219
ISSN
0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1127212170
Cited by
121
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5
FWCI
1.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Patient Education and Counseling (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Apollo
Funders
National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
hypertension, patient perspectives, clinician perspectives, patient-clinician relationship, home blood pressure monitoring, behavior change, patient empowerment
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Blood Pressure, Female, Humans, Hypertension, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Motivation, Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory, Self Efficacy, Personal Autonomy

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