Cited by 110Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesMedication Adherence and ComplianceMobile Health and mHealth Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Supporting self-management for people with hypertension: a meta-review of quantitative and qualitative systematic reviews

Open access

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Globally, healthcare policy promotes supported self-management as a strategy for people with long-term conditions. This meta-review aimed to explore how people with hypertension make sense of their condition, to assess the effectiveness of supported self-management in hypertension, and to identify effective components of support. METHODS: From a search of eight databases (January 1993-October 2012; update June 2017) we included systematic syntheses of qualitative studies of patients' experiences, and systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of supported self-management on blood pressure and medication adherence. We used meta-ethnography, meta-Forest plots and narrative analysis to synthesise the data. RESULTS: Six qualitative and 29 quantitative reviews provided data from 98 and 446 unique studies, respectively. Self-management support consistently reduced SBP (by between 2 and 6 mmHg), and DBP (by between 1 and 5 mmHg). Information about hypertension and treatment, home BP monitoring (HBPM) and feedback (including telehealth) were widely used in effective interventions. Patients' perceptions of a disease with multiple symptoms contrasted with the professional view of an asymptomatic condition. HBPM, in the context of a supportive patient-professional relationship, changed perceptions of the significance of symptoms and fostered confidence in ability to self-manage hypertension. CONCLUSION: Our systematic qualitative and quantitative meta-reviews tell complementary stories. Supported self-management can improve blood pressure control. Interventions are complex and encompass a broad range of support strategies. HBPM (with or without telehealth) within the context of a supportive patient-professional partnership can bridge the gap between medical and lay perspectives of hypertension and enable effective self-management.

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.0000000000001867

Cites

50 of 50 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

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 50 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Kung, 2010, From systematic reviews to clinical recommendations for evidence-based healthcare: validation of revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews (R-AMSTAR) for grading of clinical relevance, Open Dentistry J, 4, 84

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 110

Metadata

Authors
Shahaj, O., Denneny, D., Schwappach, A., Pearce, G., Epiphaniou, E., Parke, H. L., Taylor, S. J. C., & Pinnock, H.
Affiliations
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Public Health Wales (GB)
  • Coventry University (GB)
  • University of Nicosia (CY)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Pinnock, Hilary
Venue
Journal of Hypertension
Published
2019-02
Volume
37
Issue
2
Pages
264-279
ISSN
0263-6352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2883396782
Cited by
110
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6
FWCI
1.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Journal of Hypertension (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure (Coventry University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Scottish Government
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (11/1014/04)
  • Department of Health and Social Care (11/1014/04)
  • Health Services and Delivery Research Programme (11/1014/04)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
hypertension, self-management support, home blood pressure monitoring, telemedicine, medication adherence, blood pressure control, patient-professional relationship, chronic disease, self-management interventions
MeSH terms
Self-Management, Systematic Reviews as Topic, Blood Pressure, Blood Pressure Determination, Humans, Hypertension, Telemedicine, Medication Adherence

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