Comparative Effectiveness of Implementation Strategies for Blood Pressure Control in Hypertensive Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
Background: The prevalence of hypertension is high and is increasing worldwide, whereas the proportion of controlled hypertension is low. Purpose: To assess the comparative effectiveness of 8 implementation strategies for blood pressure (BP) control in adults with hypertension. Data Sources: Systematic searches of MEDLINE and Embase from inception to September 2017 with no language restrictions, supplemented with manual reference searches. Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials lasting at least 6 months comparing the effect of implementation strategies versus usual care on BP reduction in adults with hypertension. Data Extraction: Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Data Synthesis: A total of 121 comparisons from 100 articles with 55 920 hypertensive patients were included. Multilevel, multicomponent strategies were most effective for systolic BP reduction, including team-based care with medication titration by a nonphysician (-7.1 mm Hg [95% CI, -8.9 to -5.2 mm Hg]), team-based care with medication titration by a physician (-6.2 mm Hg [CI, -8.1 to -4.2 mm Hg]), and multilevel strategies without team-based care (-5.0 mm Hg [CI, -8.0 to -2.0 mm Hg]). Patient-level strategies resulted in systolic BP changes of -3.9 mm Hg (CI, -5.4 to -2.3 mm Hg) for health coaching and -2.7 mm Hg (CI, -3.6 to -1.7 mm Hg) for home BP monitoring. Similar trends were seen for diastolic BP reduction. Limitation: Sparse data from low- and middle-income countries; few trials of some implementation strategies, such as provider training; and possible publication bias. Conclusion: Multilevel, multicomponent strategies, followed by patient-level strategies, are most effective for BP control in patients with hypertension and should be used to improve hypertension control. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Team-based care improves hypertension treatment and control.
“Team-based care improves hypertension treatment and control.”
From São Paulo call to action for the prevention and control of high blood pressure: 2020 (2019) · cites this paper as [60]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 54 · Cited by 299
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [21]Committee on Public Health Priorities to Reduce and Control Hypertension in the U.S. Population, Institute of Medicine A population-based policy and systems change approach to prevent and control hypertension Washington DC National Academy Press 2010 25032370
- Authors
- Mills, K. T., Obst, K. M., Shen, W., Molina, S., Zhang, H.-J., He, H., Cooper, L. A., & He, J.
- Affiliations
- Tulane University (US)
- Venue
- Annals of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American College of Physicians
- Published
- 2018-01-16
- Volume
- 168
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 110-120
- ISSN
- 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-3704
- PMC
- PMC5788021
- OpenAlex
- W2777811290
- Cited by
- 299
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2026: 36 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 1 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 2.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Annals of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (U01HL114197)
- National Institute of General Medical Sciences (P20GM109036)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Keywords
- hypertension, blood pressure control, implementation strategies, team-based care, dose titration, multilevel strategies, health coaching, home blood pressure monitoring, provider training, systolic blood pressure reduction, diastolic blood pressure reduction
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Antihypertensive Agents, Humans, Hypertension, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Comparative Effectiveness Research
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