Cited by 173Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesDigital Mental Health Interventions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Digital interventions to promote self-management in adults with hypertension systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the evidence for using interactive digital interventions (IDIs) to support patient self-management of hypertension, and to determine their impact on control and reduction of blood pressure. METHOD: Systematic review with meta-analysis was undertaken with a search performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, Cochrane Library, DoPHER, TROPHI, Social Science Citation Index and Science Citation Index. The population was adults (>18 years) with hypertension, intervention was an IDI and the comparator was usual care. Primary outcomes were change in SBP and DBP. Only randomized controlled trials and studies published in journals and in English were eligible. Eligible IDIs included interventions accessed through a computer, smartphone or other hand-held device. RESULTS: Four out of seven studies showed a significantly greater reduction for intervention compared to usual care for SBP, with no difference found for three. Overall, IDIs significantly reduced SBP, with the weighted mean difference being -3.74 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI) -2.19 to -2.58] with no heterogeneity observed (I-squared = 0.0%, P = 0.990). For DBP, four out of six studies indicated a greater reduction for intervention compared to controls, with no difference found for two. For DBP, a significant reduction of -2.37 mmHg (95% CI -0.40 to -4.35) was found, but considerable heterogeneity was noted (I-squared = 80.1%, P = <0.001). CONCLUSION: IDIs lower both SBP and DBP compared to usual care. Results suggest these findings can be applied to a wide range of healthcare systems and populations. However, sustainability and long-term clinical effectiveness of these interventions remain uncertain.

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 · 10.1097/hjh.0000000000000859

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

FIGURE 1 PRISMA flow chart. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses.
FIGURE 1 PRISMA flow chart. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
FIGURE 2 Forest plot of the effect of digital intervention on SBP reduction, comparing studies using self-monitoring and studies using no self-monitoring. Squares indicate the effect size of a study, with 95% confidence interval (CI); diamonds indicate the overall effect size of all studies combined. (b) Funnel plot for SBP.
FIGURE 2 Forest plot of the effect of digital intervention on SBP reduction, comparing studies using self-monitoring and studies using no self-monitoring. Squares indicate the effect size of a study, with 95% confidence interval (CI); diamonds indicate the overall effect size of all studies combined. (b) Funnel plot for SBP.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
FIGURE 3 Forest plot of the effect of digital intervention on DBP reduction, comparing studies using self-monitoring and studies using no self-monitoring. Squares indicate the effect size with 95% confidence interval (CI) of a study; diamonds indicate the overall effect size of all studies combined. (b) Funnel plot for DBP.
FIGURE 3 Forest plot of the effect of digital intervention on DBP reduction, comparing studies using self-monitoring and studies using no self-monitoring. Squares indicate the effect size with 95% confidence interval (CI) of a study; diamonds indicate the overall effect size of all studies combined. (b) Funnel plot for DBP.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

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

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?

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 44 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Bray, 2010, Does self-monitoring reduce blood pressure Meta-analysis with meta-regression of randomized controlled trials., Ann Med, 42, 371, 10.3109/07853890.2010.489567 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
McLean, G., Band, R., Saunderson, K., Hanlon, P., Murray, E., Little, P., McManus, R. J., Yardley, L., & Mair, F. S.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
McLean, Gary
Venue
Journal of Hypertension
Published
2016-04
Volume
34
Issue
4
Pages
600-612
ISSN
0263-6352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2321682528
Cited by
168
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4
FWCI
2.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Journal of Hypertension (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (CDF/01/017, RP-PG-1211-20001)
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/F029624/1)
  • Programme Grants for Applied Research (RP-PG-1211-20001)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
hypertension, self-management, mobile health, blood pressure control, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, mobile application, patient education
MeSH terms
Aged, Female, Health Promotion, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Middle Aged, Self Care, Internet

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