Cited by 34Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesMedication Adherence and Compliance

Understanding the Feasibility, Acceptability, and Efficacy of a Clinical Pharmacist-led Mobile Approach (BPTrack) to Hypertension Management: Mixed Methods Pilot Study

Open access
Buis, Lorraine R, Roberson, Dana N, Kadri, Reema, Rockey, Nicole G, Plegue, Melissa A, Danak, Shivang U, Guetterman, Timothy C, Johnson, Melanie G +2 more·2020·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Hypertension is a prevalent and costly burden in the United States. Clinical pharmacists within care teams provide effective management of hypertension, as does home blood pressure monitoring; however, concerns about data quality and latency are widespread. One approach to close the gap between clinical pharmacist intervention and home blood pressure monitoring is the use of mobile health (mHealth) technology. Objective: We sought to investigate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of BPTrack, a clinical pharmacist-led intervention that incorporates patient- and clinician-facing apps to make electronically collected, patient-generated data available to providers in real time for hypertension management. The patient app also included customizable daily medication reminders and educational messages. Additionally, this study sought to understand barriers to adoption and areas for improvement identified by key stakeholders, so more widespread use of such interventions may be achieved. Methods: We conducted a mixed methods pilot study of BPTrack, to improve blood pressure control in patients with uncontrolled hypertension through a 12-week pre-post intervention. All patients were recruited from a primary care setting where they worked with a clinical pharmacist for hypertension management. Participants completed a baseline visit, then spent 12 weeks utilizing BPTrack before returning to the clinic for follow-up. Collected data from patient participants included surveys pre- and postintervention, clinical measures (for establishing effectiveness, with the primary outcome being a change in blood pressure and the secondary outcome being a change in medication adherence), utilization of the BPTrack app, interviews at follow-up, and chart review. We also conducted interviews with key stakeholders. Results: A total of 15 patient participants were included (13 remained through follow-up for an 86.7% retention rate) in a single group, pre-post assessment pilot study. Data supported the hypothesis that BPTrack was feasible and acceptable for use by patient and provider participants and was effective at reducing patient blood pressure. At the 12-week follow-up, patients exhibited significant reductions in both systolic blood pressure (baseline mean 137.3 mm Hg, SD 11.1 mm Hg; follow-up mean 131.0 mm Hg, SD 9.9 mm Hg; P=.02) and diastolic blood pressure (baseline mean 89.4 mm Hg, SD 7.7 mm Hg; follow-up mean 82.5 mm Hg, SD 8.2 mm Hg; P<.001). On average, patients uploaded at least one blood pressure measurement on 75% (SD 25%) of study days. No improvements in medication adherence were noted. Interview data revealed areas of improvement and refinement for the patient experience. Furthermore, stakeholders require integration into the electronic health record and a modified clinical workflow for BPTrack to be truly useful; however, both patients and stakeholders perceived benefits of BPTrack when used within the context of a clinical relationship. Conclusions: Results demonstrate that a pharmacist-led mHealth intervention promoting home blood pressure monitoring and clinical pharmacist management of hypertension can be effective at reducing blood pressure in primary care patients with uncontrolled hypertension. Our data also support the feasibility and acceptability of these types of interventions for patients and providers. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02898584; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02898584 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/resprot.8059

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 · 10.2196/19882

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [22]Murakami L Rakotz M Self-measured Blood Pressure Monitoring Program: Engaging Patients in Self-measurement American Medical Association and the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine 2015 2020-04-20 https://www.ama-assn.org/sites/ama-assn.org/files/corp/media-browser/public/about-ama/iho-bp-engaging-patients-in-self-measurment_0.pdf

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Buis, L. R., Roberson, D. N., Kadri, R., Rockey, N. G., Plegue, M. A., Danak, S. U., Guetterman, T. C., Johnson, M. G., Choe, H. M., & Richardson, C. R.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Buis, Lorraine R
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2020-08-11
Volume
22
Issue
8
Pages
e19882
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3034212911
Cited by
32
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3
FWCI
3.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • University of Michigan (UL1TR000433)
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000433)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
Keywords
antihypertensive therapy, mobile health, clinical pharmacist intervention, home blood pressure monitoring, patient-generated health data, real-time data exchange, medication adherence, medication reminders, blood pressure control, primary care, feasibility and acceptability, telemedicine, patient engagement, medication review
MeSH terms
Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Middle Aged, Pharmacists, Pilot Projects, Surveys and Questionnaires, Treatment Outcome, Telemedicine

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