Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 361

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Lay perspectives on hypertension and drug adherence: systematic review of qualitative research

Open access
Marshall, I. J., Wolfe, C. D. A., McKevitt, C.·2012·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To synthesise the findings from individual qualitative studies on patients' understanding and experiences of hypertension and drug taking; to investigate whether views differ internationally by culture or ethnic group and whether the research could inform interventions to improve adherence. DESIGN: Systematic review and narrative synthesis of qualitative research using the 2006 UK Economic and Social Research Council research methods programme guidance. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, the British Nursing Index, Social Policy and Practice, and PsycInfo from inception to October 2011. STUDY SELECTION: Qualitative interviews or focus groups among people with uncomplicated hypertension (studies principally in people with diabetes, established cardiovascular disease, or pregnancy related hypertension were excluded). RESULTS: 59 papers reporting on 53 qualitative studies were included in the synthesis. These studies came from 16 countries (United States, United Kingdom, Brazil, Sweden, Canada, New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Ghana, Iran, Israel, Netherlands, South Korea, Spain, Tanzania, and Thailand). A large proportion of participants thought hypertension was principally caused by stress and produced symptoms, particularly headache, dizziness, and sweating. Participants widely intentionally reduced or stopped treatment without consulting their doctor. Participants commonly perceived that their blood pressure improved when symptoms abated or when they were not stressed, and that treatment was not needed at these times. Participants disliked treatment and its side effects and feared addiction. These findings were consistent across countries and ethnic groups. Participants also reported various external factors that prevented adherence, including being unable to find time to take the drugs or to see the doctor; having insufficient money to pay for treatment; the cost of appointments and healthy food; a lack of health insurance; and forgetfulness. CONCLUSIONS: Non-adherence to hypertension treatment often resulted from patients' understanding of the causes and effects of hypertension; particularly relying on the presence of stress or symptoms to determine if blood pressure was raised. These beliefs were remarkably similar across ethnic and geographical groups; calls for culturally specific education for individual ethnic groups may therefore not be justified. To improve adherence, clinicians and educational interventions must better understand and engage with patients' ideas about causality, experiences of symptoms, and concerns about drug side effects.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.e3953

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Marshall, I. J., Wolfe, C. D. A., & McKevitt, C.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2012-07-09
Volume
345
Issue
jul09 1
Pages
e3953-e3953
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2059563370
Cited by
361
References
3
FWCI
4.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

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.